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 207 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 noting left to lose by going to war with the state. But there should be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic 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.

　　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.

　　26.【答案】C
　　【解析】
　　reneging 的原形是renege，本议是“食言”“否认”之意，为反向意义词。而四个选项中A 中的condemning 意为“谴责”“处刑”B中的reaffirming 意为“重申”“再肯定，再断言”，C中的dishonoring的意为“拒付，不兑付”，在意思和方向上都符合，D中securing 意为“保证，使保险”的含义。本文主要在说Entergy这个公司不兑现自己的诺言，所以应选C项。
　　27.【答案】D
　　【解析】
　　本题答案定位在文中第三段每二句话，As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale , the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012. “as a condition of”可以理解为“为了”，D 项中的“purchase ”一词就是对文中“sale”的替换。
　　28.【答案】A
　　【解析】
　　题干：“根据第四段Entergy公司似乎在它的····上存在着问题”，题目中已清晰把答案范围确定在第四段，通过阅读第四段我们可以看到Entergy公司出现了一系列的事故“a string of accidents”,而后面的这句“raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management”就是本题的答案所在了。其中 “managerial” “management”仍是同一单词的变形。
　　29.【答案】D
　　【解析】
　　首先从题干知道考查的是作者的观点。 “佛蒙特州事件”和will test在文章中的定位是在第5段第5句话，“Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend”意思是“佛蒙特州事件将会检验是这些权利延伸多远的先例”。这句话是legal scholars的观点。重点是理解certainly和but后面的意思。虽然作者承认担忧如果每个周各行其是的后果是合理的，但是But后面是个虚拟语气，与事实相反。所以作者的真正态度是支持legal scholars的观点，即佛蒙特州事件是对州法规的权限的考验。How far those power extended与D选项的the limits of states’power与选项D“各州在核问题上的权限”是相匹配的，因此正确答案为D。其他选项与“佛蒙特州事件”带来的检验，文中并未直接提及。
　　30.【答案】A
　　【解析】
　　最后一段主要讲的是“Entergy公司的名誉已严重受创。该公司向联邦申请：许可Pilgrim核电站获得另外20年的开放权。但是作者认为，核管理委员会在审核该公司的申请的时候，务必要考虑下该公司的信誉问题。”A选项“Entergy公司在其它地方的生意将会受到影响”由最后一段的第一句话“Entergy公司的名誉已严重受创”就可以推断出来;B“核管理委员会的权威将会被藐视”最后一段没给出任何要藐视核管理委员会的暗含信息，因此B选项错误;C “Entergy公司将会撤回关于Pilgrim核电站的申请”，最后一段同样没给出类似的暗含信息;D “Vermont的名声将会受到破坏” 同样，从最后一段，根本无法推断出。因此，最佳答案是A。