That average is a false equivalency since the cost subsidy will be localized to the regional power provider typically the state-run monopoly or some other large provider. It's not an even distribution and the core thesis of the article, that the lower-income folks are the ones subsidizing it, likely still holds because land is historically cheaper and is generally less developed by municipal and state govts when its residents are lower-income and/or a minority population, and local distribution (and costs) impact those with less (usually no) disposable income by which they can improve their household energy efficiency.

This makes no sense because the impact here is increased costs on the utilities which is then passed through as rate increases. Unless lower income people consume more electricity than rich people (doubt) then it doesn't impact them more.

They're saying it's not $15 from each of the $350m people in the US, it's a much larger number from each of the much smaller number of people unlucky enough to share a utility with one of these new data centers.

Well, since it’s “only” $5.1 billion, the trillion dollar valued companies should have no problem paying costs in full rather than seeking subsidies from the hapless taxpayers.