Let's make some assumptions first:

1. DCs must be built anyway

2. You can't take away energy from households

(3). Highly preferred that you are not going to impact cost negatively to households (otherwise why we have this discussion)

based on these assumptions, solution I see is, BigTech subsidising energy costs for 10 years for nearby households (area will be geofenced, e.g. in the radius of 50km), subsidy will be based on the prices outside of that radius. e.g. if you everyone outside of closest DC pays 1$ and in the radius prices become 1.5$, 0.5$ will be covered by BigTech and they're also responsible & pay to setup the system to automatically include everyone in subsidy program, not like you need to apply

Also BigTech is not going to build the power generation plants, it must be built by existing processes to minimize impact on pricing

Many problems with it:

* power generation is not local in most of the cases. You'd be still fucking energy market to anyone outside it

* power is also used by companies people actually want. Even if household power cost wont chance thanks to that approach, the price for power for every single business around will increase.

* similarly any other manufacturing business will cost more. In essence, the AI boom will reduce profit margin of every single business that has electric power as significant cost in the production. Which is a lot of industries.

"Making AI pay more for its useless power draw" is nice idea but it is pretty hard to realise. Unless we start outright denying connection to power grid but that's pretty dangerous political precedent to set.