The nuclear plant in question even says that didn't happen in the article. It's odd. Why are they admitting their article is misleading inside the article itself?

Comms are all supposed to follow this double meaning principle, where they do make sense at face value as well, so you have to know what to look for. In this case, besides the article admitting this isn't actually happening, the fact that it's about 'nuclear' plants almost guarantees it's comms.