Text 2
A deal is adeal-except, apparently, when Entergy is involved. The company, a major energysupplier in New England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week whenit announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by thestrict nuclear regulations.
Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federalcourt, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear powerplant running. It’s a stunning move.
The conflicthas been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont’s onlynuclear power plant, an aging reactor in Vernon. As a condition of receivingstate approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from stateregulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went a step further,requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermontlegislature’s approval. Then, too, the company went along.
EitherEntergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didn’tforesee what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partialcollapse of a cooling tower in 207 and the discovery of an underground pipesystem leakage, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety andEntergy’s management– especially after the company made misleading statementsabout the pipe. Enraged by Entergy’s behavior, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4last year against allowing an extension.
Now thecompany is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the2006 legislation, and that only the federal government has regulatory powerover nuclear issues. The legal issues in the case are obscure: whereas theSupreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority overnuclear power, legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer aprecedent-setting test of how far those powers extend. Certainly, there arevalid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every statesets its own rules. But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be besidethe point.
The companyseems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damagedthat it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state. But thereshould be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic trust.Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States, including Pilgrim Nuclearstation in Plymouth. Pledging to run Pilgrim safely, the company has appliedfor federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years. But as the NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the company’s application, it should keepit mind what promises from Entergy are worth.
26. The phrase “reneging on”(Line 3.para.1)is closest in meaning to
[A]condemning.
[B]reaffirming.
[C]dishonoring.
[D]securing.
27. By entering into the 2002 agreement,Entergy intended to
[A] obtainprotection from Vermont regulators.
[B] seekfavor from the federal legislature.
[C] acquirean extension of its business license .
[D] getpermission to purchase a power plant.
28. According to Paragraph 4, Entergy seemsto have problems with its
[A]managerial practices.
[B]technical innovativeness.
[C]financial goals.
[D] businessvision
29. In the author’s view, the Vermont casewill test
[A]Entergy’s capacity to fulfill all its promises.
[B] themature of states’ patchwork regulations.
[C] thefederal authority over nuclear issues .
[D] thelimits of states’ power over nuclear issues.
30. It can be inferred from the lastparagraph that
[A]Entergy’s business elsewhere might be affected.
[B] theauthority of the NRC will be defied.
[C] Entergywill withdraw its Plymouth application.
[D]Vermont’s reputation might be damaged.
用户评论