单选题 A deal is a deal-except, apparently, when Entergy is involved. The 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 strict 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 federal court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. It's a stunning move.
The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont's only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor in Vernon. As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring that any extension of the plant's license be subject to Vermont legislature's approval. Then, too, the company went along.
Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didn't foresee what would happen next. A 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. Enraged by Entergy's behavior, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.
Now 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. The 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 that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend. Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules. But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be beside the point.
The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has nothing left to lose by going to war with the state. But there should be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a public trust. Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States, including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth. Pledging to run Pilgrim safely, the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years. But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the company's application, it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.
单选题 The phrase "reneging on" (Line 3. para. 1) is closest in meaning to ______.
  • A. condemning
  • B. reaffirming
  • C. dishonoring
  • D. securing
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[考点] 词义理解题 [解析] 词意题：A deal is a deal之后出现except，表明前后相反；还有一次题眼：commitment to abide by；前面出现provoked justified outrage，一个是正当的愤怒，一个是守承诺，那么中间就只能是不守承诺了。答案为C。
单选题 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
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】[考点] 细节题 [解析] 根据题干对应文中The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont's only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor in Vernon.“冲突从2002年开始就出现了，那个时候公司购买了Vermont唯一的一家核电站；在Vernon的一家很旧的反应堆”。As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012.“作为获得州政府购买批准的条件，公司同意在2012年以后的运营需要征得州监管者的同意”。2002 agreement对应the company agreed to；intended to对应As a condition of因此答案为：receiving state approval for the sale；D．get permission to purchase a power plant. 完美替换。
单选题 According to Paragraph 4, Entergy seems to have problems with its ______.
  • A. managerial practices
  • B. technical innovativeness
  • C. financial goals
  • D. business vision
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】[考点] 细节题 [解析] A 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.“一系列的事故，包括2007年冷凝塔的部分坍塌，发现地下管道系统的泄露，这些都引起了对于Vermont Yankee安全和公司管理的强烈关注”。所以答案应该是A。
单选题 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
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】[考点] 细节题 [解析] 定位到文章对应句子：whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend. “但是最高法院判定各州确实有一些对于核电站的调控权力，法律学者说这个案例将提供先例设定的测试，决定这些权力能扩展多远”。作者的观点借用legal scholars之口说出来这在以前的文章中也是多次提到，因此答案选择D。
单选题 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
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】[考点] 段落推理题 [解析] 重点对于段落中心和转折。这里没有中心却有转折The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has nothing left to lose by going to war with the state. But there should be consequences. 公司似乎可以得出结论其在vermont的名誉已经受到破坏了，所以它已经没有任何东西可以丢失了，于是可以和州政府开战了。但是这是有后果的。后面句子开始描述其在其他州的生意，可以知道对应答案，常见的转折推理且出现might. 因此答案选择D。