This is a classic case of "tech journalism"... If you follow the sources the source of the data and it's methodology uses the CBECI which the latest update lists a range of 75-384 TWh. (Note that the "2%" listed in the parent article is the global power consumption of the Bitcoin network compared to the US electrical network, aka a bad faith comparison). It explicitly states:
The upper-bound estimate corresponds to the absolute maximum power demand of the Bitcoin network. While useful for providing a quantifiable maximum, it is a purely hypothetical value that is non-viable for various reasons...
Which of course is the estimate that the journalists use for this peice.
There's also a bunch of likely issues within the methodology as it's estimate is largely based on the number of ASICs produced; the assumption that "mining nodes ('miners') are rational economic agents that only use profitable hardware." and that any amount profit is sufficient to keep a mining operation ongoing; and many others. It actually does a pretty good job of disclosing a lot of the methodology flaws within the link above.
My goal is just to call out bad/lazy journalism and what I assume is oil/gas distractionary tactics. Electricity is ~38% of US energy consumption and even that maximum bound of 2% when comparing it to the global Bitcoin network is practically negligible when contextualized.