What happened to nuclear being so much cheaper than coal? Is it really just subsidies for coal that tip the balance? Then the logical consequence would be to remove subsidies from that. But I suspect the "nuclear=cheap" mantra is not the end of the story.
I have the opposite assumption: the raw data is usually more reliable than an editorial. And I confirmed it: the raw table is more reliable since it is the same survey across different years. The article is inconsistently comparing numbers from 2 different surveys. The 2018 figure (2.63) is from the "American Community Survey" and the 2010 figure (2.58) is from "Census SF1 data".
https://pontus.granstrom.me/scrappy/