①A 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.

②Instead, 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.

③The 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 the Vermont legislature’s approval. Then, too, the company went along.

④Either 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.

⑤Now 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.

⑥The 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. 

1.The phrase “reneging on” (Para. 1) is closest in meaning to _________

A condemning.

B reaffirming.

C dishonoring.

D securing.

解析：选C。C词义猜测题。根据题目定位到第一段，根据第一句“商业协议就是商业协议，但安特吉牵涉其中的时候是个例外。”可知安特吉说话不算话。结合第二句上周它宣布reneging on“遵守该州严格的核法规”的长期承诺时，在佛蒙特州激发了众怒。可推知reneging on意为“违背”的意思，故选C。

2.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.

解析：选D。D细节理解题。根据2002定位到第三段，根据第一、二句可知，该公司买下了佛蒙特州唯一的核电站，而当时州政府批准该买卖的条件之一就是，该公司同意向州政府监管机构申请在2021年之后的经营许可（此即为2002协议）。故选D。

3.According to Paragraph 4, Entergy seems to have problems with its _________

A managerial practices.

B technical innovativeness.

C financial goals.

D business vision.

解析：选A。A推理判断题。根据题目定位到第四段，可知Entergy的一系列事故使人们对佛蒙特州扬基核电站的安全性和Entergy公司的管理提出了质疑，可推知Entergy公司的管理实践出了问题，故选A。

4.In the author’s view, the Vermont case will test _________

A Entergy’s capacity to fulfill all its promises.

B the nature of states’ patchwork regulations.

C the federal authority over nuclear issues.

D the limits of states’ power over nuclear issues.

解析：选D。D推理判断题。根据the Vermont case和test定位到第五段，根据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.可知，虽然最高法院已裁定各州对核能有一定的监管权，但学者表示该案件将为测试“这些权力究竟有多大”提供一个先例。根据语境可知作者认为该案件将检验“各州对核能的权力有多大”，故选D。

5.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.

解析：选A。A推理判断题。根据题目定位到最后一段，可知Entergy在普利茅斯的朝圣者核电站向联邦政府申请再开放20年，但美国NRC（核管理委员会）审核该公司的申请时，应该记住Entergy的承诺到底价值多少。反应了该公司的其他地区的业务可能会受到影响，故选A。