Injecting politics into the redistricting process – a process already governed by politics – is unfortunate but ultimately harms no one but politicians. It’s irksome when Texas Republicans and New York and California Democrats play shenanigans with congressional district lines because of party politics, but ultimately it’s not an earth-shattering issue for most people.

Injecting politics into the operation of the state electric grid, on the other hand, is different. We’re seeing that with the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, the 2019 bill that set New York down the path toward a fossil fuel-free power grid. But, reasonable minds can see the state can’t meet the CLCPA without inflicting pain on the general public in the form of skyrocketing electric rates and potential unreliability of the power grid. It’s an area that should be kept clear of politics as much as possible, in our opinion.

That’s why legislation introduced recently by a pair of downstate Democrats gives us pause.

State Assemblywoman Emily Gallagher, D-Brooklyn, and state Sen. Kristen Gonzalez, D-New York City, are pushing for the closure of the peaker plants, starting with a study by NYSERDA, the state Public Service Commission and the New York Power Authority. The study bill (A.9003/S.7923A) could be on the legislative agenda when the 2026 legislative session begins in January and comes after environmental advocates called on Gov. Kathy Hochul, Public Service Commission Chair Rory Christian, Department of Environmental Commission Commissioner Amanda Lefton, and New York State Research and Development Authority President Doreen Harris to push for and prioritize systemic reforms that will accelerate the transition to affordable, reliable, renewable energy. That includes any reliance on fossil fuel plants like the peaker plants, older fossil fuel plants that run when necessary on exceedingly hot or cold days to maintain the reliability of the power grid.

The state Independent System Operator has pushed to keep peaker plants open until at least the completion of a transmission pipeline from Canadian hydropower to the United States. While the ISO’s previously identified power grid shortfalls have receded as of this year’s Power Trends report, in our view peaker plants shouldn’t be taken offline until the ISO says the power grid is stable. Environmental advocates say the ISO is too pessimistic in the way it views renewable energy availability and demand concerns as electrification of everything from home heating to transportation takes place.

We’d prefer those in charge of the power grid base their recommendations and plans on worst-case scenarios rather than through the primrose glasses that led us to believe the CLCPA was an achievable set of goals back in 2019. We know now that it is not. Should we trust such advocates to make recommendations on the power plants that keep the power grid operating reliably? In our view, we should not.