That is not an irrational concern.

Over the long term, we can be comforted by the fact that low cost-energy is not concentrated to any one geographic area or political jurisdiction. The existing low-cost energy which was well in excess of demand, well yes -- that's mostly been identified and either being consumed (e.g., excess hydroelectric capacity wherever it exists), or bitcoin mining is prohibited there (e.g., China, parts of Quebec, etc.).

However if we're at about 15 GW now (per CBECI) and the mining equipment manufacturers are producing another 15 GW or whatever (likely more) of demand in the next couple years, that equipment will displace older equipment -- much of which will head to new homes (unless, bitcoin price rises faster than the hashrate, which might cause even the old equipment to remain in-place longer). The new homes for the equipment that got replaced will not be the large industrial miners. The destinations for those might be hundreds or thousands of additional oil field sites. The destinations might include where new approaches are attempted (e.g., gas from bio-digesters in agricultural regions). Or where the heat is what is needed (e.g., for drying grains, or heating a greenhouse), and mining justifies doing that with electricity. Whether that keeps enough hashrate in the non-industrial mining operations to alleviate your concern, that's hard to tell at this point.

But the surest way to a win is to make it so the grid is reliant on the bitcoin mining for reliability. If bitcoin mining brings additional revenue for the power producer that would otherwise not run at capacity, well then taking that opportunity away might then result in higher prices to the consumer. Or if the only way construction of additional capacity can be justified is if bitcoin mining is there to buy power outside of the peak period, then messing with mining (i.e., blacklists, whitelists, whatever) might cause the lights to not remain on -- which is not something the politicians want to be seen as being responsible for.

So, ... long term, likely not a concern. Near term, it's really an unknown. We have to see how much equipment these manufacturers actually will be shipping. The hashrate has historically not lagged price rallies by this much and/or for this long of a period of time. If the hashrate grows 50% in just a couple months, it's very likely from large industrial ops coming online with new hardware). If that happens, then for a period of time (maybe until the halving), ... we would be exposed to the risk of which you expressed concern.