I'm sorry, but I can't give you full credit on your answer to the second part 
of my question. The correct answer was the author's use of the word 
"stunning" to describe the $6.2 billion figure. The word is clearly an 
editorialization on the amount of the refund requested, and is therefore 
journalistically incorrect.  In addition, you failed to extemporize on why a 
journalist for an energy trade magazine would leave such gaping holes in 
his/her story. 

But because I'm feeling lenient this morning, I'll give you the details.

There was no date.

Kate