1. In normal and honest language you state things you have done, and their consequences.
2. Passive voice attempts to deflect blame by only stating the consequences as if they just magically occurred through divine intervention.
3. In the next stage they don't even acknowledge the consequences, and instead place the entire issue inside your experience of the facts.
We don't know what exactly caused the power issue and they might not have had a root cause at the time either. Let's assume that their power redundancy equipment failed, say, due to insufficient maintenance. This is not an active action, it's a passive one (they didn't do their maintenance duties properly and now it blew). So there is nothing to say for point #1 and #2.
There's also the part where they say that the customers they identified as impacted may be experiencing a service degradation. This may sound pedantic, but I think it is not an entirely unreasonable phrasing. Maybe my business isn't actively relying on the resources I have deployed in that datacenter. How would they know (#3)? Should I clean those resources up? Possibly. Depends on my access patterns and other considerations.
It reads like face (and ass) saving legal esque language. But there's a reason face and ass saving legalese sounds like it does.