2. 考研
  3. A deal is a deal — except, apparently, when Entergy is involved. The company, a major energy supplier in New England, provoked j

A deal is a deal — except, apparently, when Entergy is involved. The company, a major energy supplier in New England, provoked j

admin2019-11-21  93
问题    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 state’s 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 ninning. 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 the 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 in mind what promises from Entergy are worth.
选项
答案 一笔交易就是一种协定——但当交易涉及到安特吉公司的问题时，情况就明显不同了。新英格兰地区的主要能源供应商安特吉公司上周宣布要违反之前的一项长期承诺，不再遵守该州严苛的核能法令，这一举动引发了佛蒙特州合乎情理的民愤。 然而该公司恰恰做了长久以来一直保证不会做的事：在联邦法院上质疑佛蒙特州法令的合宪性。这是该公司为了使其佛蒙特州扬基核电站继续运营而拼尽全力所作的努力之一。这一举动非常惊人。 矛盾始于2002年，当时该公司购买了佛蒙特州唯一的核能电站——一处位于佛能市的老旧反应堆基地。为了获得佛蒙特州对该收购的批准，公司同意从州管理部门处寻求批准，以允许其在2012年后继续运营这个核电站。2006年，佛蒙特州进一步要求该核电站营业执照的任何延期都必须经过佛蒙特州的法律批准。该公司随后也答应了此要求。 安特吉公司要么是从来就没有真正想要信守承诺，要么是仅仅没有预见到之后将会发生的事情。一系列意外事件——包括2007年一座冷却塔部分倾塌以及地下管道系统发现渗漏——都让人们严重质疑佛蒙特州扬基核电站的安全性和安特吉公司的管理水平，特别是在该公司对管道渗漏作出具误导性的声明之后。该公司的行为惹怒了佛蒙特议会，州议会去年投票以26比4的结果反对安特吉公司核电站的延期申请。 现在该公司突然宣称，根据2006年的法令，2002年的协议无效，同时，只有联邦政府才有权管理核能事宜。这一事件中的法律问题含糊不清：最高法院已经裁定，各个州对于核能事宜有一些规管权限，但是，这些权限究竟能扩大到什么地步，法律专家说佛蒙特案件为此提供了可供设为先例的测试。诚然。如果每一个州都设立自己的法令，必然会导致混杂不堪的场面，人们对于这种情形的忧虑是有道理的。但是，如果安特吉公司信守了承诺，那么此场辩论也就不存在了。 安特吉公司似乎已经得出结论，自己在佛蒙特州的声誉已经受损，跟州政府宣战也不会再损失些什么了。但是，这肯定会带来恶果。核电站的运营权需得到公众信任。安特吉在全美还有11座核反应堆，其中包括普利茅斯的皮尔格林核电站。安特吉承诺能安全地运作皮尔格林核电站，并向联邦政府提出申请，希望能允许皮尔格林核电站再运作20年。但是，当美国能源管理署审核该公司的申请时，它应该慎重考虑安特吉所作的承诺是否可靠。
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/NOe4777K
0

考研英语二

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)