The first thing to consider is the source. It's from the Guardian (i.e. a real newspaper), so you can keep reading.
Airlines and energy suppliers are on alert as the largest solar storm in five years heads toward Earth, threatening to disrupt flights and power lines.
First, a sanity check. Do you remember the world resembling a Roland Emmerich movie five years ago? If not, then this one probably won't cause widespread destruction. In fact, every source mentioned plays down the significance and stresses that there will be some strain on infrastructure, but no real danger. The last sentence is a bit dramatic, but there still is an absence of any alarmism, but rather the article puts the likely consequences in the context of previous solar storms.
But he added that the phenomenon was likely to go unnoticed by most.
"In terms of what that means from the public's point of view, there's an increased chance of aurora borealis or Northern Lights being seen if conditions are right and the skies are clear."
Nasa solar physicist Alex Young said: "It could give us a bit of a jolt."
Next up, sources. The article mentions several specific sources, some of them by name, otherwise by affiliation. The named organisations are the Met Office
and NASA. I had to look up the first two, but they are large, established organisations with good reputations. Saying they are right because they are big and well known would be fallacious, but it's a useful way to judge how fringe their views are in the absence of indepth knowledge, which I don't have.
A hallmark of crank science and the reporting on them is that either there are no source named, or they are fringe groups or individuals who go against the bulk of professional opinion. That's not the case here, so that's another point in favor of this article.