|
Text 2
①A deal is a
deal—except,
apparently, when Entergy is involved. ②The company,
a major energy supplier in New England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont
last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment
to abide by the state’s strict nuclear regulations.
①Instead,
the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not: challenge
the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court, as part of a
desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. ②It’s a stunning move.
①The
conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont’s
only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor in Vernon. ②As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company
agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012. ③In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring that any extension
of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval. ④Then, too, the company went along.
①Either
Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didn’t
foresee what would happen next. ②A string of accidents,
including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 and the discovery of
an underground pipe system leakage, raised serious questions about both Vermont
Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management—especially after the company made misleading statements about the
pipe. ③Enraged by Entergy’s behavior,
the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.
①Now the
company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the
2006 legislation, and that only the federal government has regulatory power
over nuclear issues. ②The legal issues in the case
are obscure: whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some
regulatory authority over nuclear power, legal scholars say the Vermont case
will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend. ③Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations
that could result if every state sets its own rules. ④But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be beside the
point.
①The
company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so
damaged that it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state. ②But there should be consequences. ③Permission to run a nuclear plant is a public trust. ④Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States, including
Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth. ⑤Pledging to
run Pilgrim safely, the company has applied for federal permission to keep it
open for another 20 years. ⑥But as the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) reviews the company’s application, it should keep in mind what
promises from Entergy are worth.
[442 words]
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] obtain protection from Vermont
regulators.
[B] seek favor from the federal
legislature.
[C] acquire an extension of its business
license .
[D] get permission to purchase a power
plant.
28. According to Paragraph 4, Entergy seems
to have problems with its
[A] managerial practices.
[B] technical innovativeness.
[C] financial goals.
[D] business vision
29. In the author’s view, the Vermont case
will test
[A] Entergy’s capacity to fulfill all its
promises.
[B] the mature of states’ patchwork
regulations.
[C] the federal authority over nuclear
issues .
[D] the limits of states’ power over
nuclear issues.
30. It can be inferred from the last
paragraph that
[A] Entergy’s business elsewhere might be
affected.
[B] the authority of the NRC will be
defied.
[C] Entergy will withdraw its Plymouth
application.
[D] Vermont’s reputation might be damaged.
Text 226.C27.D28.A29.D30.A
|