Omission could very well be because addition of nuclear power is not that important. If they replaced coal with diesel generators, that would have been a blatant omission. It seems that article is talking about reduction of coal (not contested) to reduce CO2 emissions (nuclear has large up-front energy consumption for concrete, but far less operational C02 costs) and pollution (possibly less problematic with nuclear in short term). Also summary talks about relying more on renewable power sources, but at least here it means some baseline energy provider — either nuclear, fossils or batteries. As such, new nuclear plants are (at least to me) a rather non-story. TMMW.