Selective omission. It creates a false impression that the only replacement power is renewables without mentioning additional nuclear capacity that presumably will also make up for the loss of this coal power.
If I say "My family has decided to cancel spending on a new SUV as part of a focus on increasing use of bicycles and public transit and wean ourselves off of cars" it sounds like we're really going green.
However, the reality is we're not just cancelling the new SUV, we're also adding another compact car, so the statement should read "My family has decided not to buy a new SUV, but instead bike and ride the bus more, and buy a second compact car to increase our transit options" we look a lot less green.
The first statement omits our use of the first compact car and the fact that we are increasing our compact car usage for transportation, creating the false impression that bikes and transit will be completely filling the transportation the SUV would have provided.
The second statement is much more accurate, as it shows while we want to bike and ride transit more, we're also expanding our use of compact cars for transportation.