Text 2 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.29.In the author’s view,the Vermont case will testA.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.
Text 2 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.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.
B.the mature of states’patchwork regulations.
C.the federal authority over nuclear issues.
D.the limits of states’power over nuclear issues.
参考解析
解析：根据提干中“the Vermont case will test”定位在第五段第二句，“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.”意
相关考题：
When items to be purchased for a project are specified by performance characteristics:A paperwork is greatly reducedB the supplier is held liable for the operation of the itemC the supplier is held liable for the maintenance of the itemD the supplier is held liable for that the item meets the design, dimensions, and tolerance specifications.E B and D only
The flight was postponed because of technical problems and was finally cancelled last week when a () was discovered. A、accidentB、defectC、damageD、defeat
When a company needs to() new people, it may advertise the job in a newspaper or on a website. A、employB、retainC、use
to look toto carry outto team upto deal withto disagree with1.An investigation into the cause of the crash will be _______by the Department of Transport. 2.In the morning meeting,I strongly _______ the last speaker. 3.I _______ with Jane and together we completed the work last summer. 4.It was a difficult situation, but she _______ it effectively. 5.They are _______ the new manager to bring the company back to profitability.
The company ___ several major changes in the last decade. A. attributedB. distributedC. underwentD. undertook
when the fuel is provided by the supplier ,what specifications of the oil can you get from the supplier receipt ?
Text 2 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.30.It can be inferred from the last paragraph thatA.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 2 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.27.By entering into the 2002 agreement,Entergy intended toA.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.
Text 2 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 toA.condemning.B.reaffirming.C.dishonoring.D.securing.
Text 2 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.28.According to Paragraph 4,Entergy seems to have problems with itsA.managerial practices.B.technical innovativeness.C.financial goals.D.business vision
--Was it not until last week__________he decided to give up smoking? --No, he began __________ he saw the new film last month.A.when; as soonB.that; immediatelyC.did; thatD.that; till
请选择合适的选项，补充下面的英文句子：The goods you ordered are（） now, and we will contact our supplier to see when they are available.A、out of stockB、in stockC、new arrivalsD、out stock
—（） — Well, they got there last Wednesday. So about a week.A、How long have your parents been in Paris?B、When did your parents arrive at Paris?C、Did your parents arrive at Paris last Wednesday?D、When will your parents go to Paris?
When is it necessary for a TDA to be conducted on an installed IBM DS8800? （）A、when installing SSD drivesB、when adding a new workloadC、when installing SATA drivesD、when adding more Linux hosts
At design time, you create a query record group for the LOV associated with the HOTEL text item in a form module for the Travel Planner Application. When is the record group populated?（）A、When the user navigates to the HOTEL item. B、When the form module successfully compiles. C、After Form Builder validates the SELECT statement and dismisses the New Record Group dialog box. D、When the user enters data in the HOTEL item, and the Validate from List property for the HOTEL item is set to YES.
You are designing an application that will use Windows Azure Table storage to store millions of data points each day. The application must retain each day’s data for only one week. You need to recommend an approach for minimizing storage transactions. What should you recommend？（）A、 Use a separate table for each date. Delete eachtable when it is one week old.B、 Use a separate table for each week. Delete each table when it is one week old.C、 Use a single table， partitioned by date. Use Entity Group Transactions to delete data when it is one week old.D、 Use a single table， partitioned by week. Use Entity Group Transactions to delete data when it is one week old.
单选题The cooperative announced last week that due to increasing sales in the tri-county area, it would distribute a quarterly dividend of more than twice the usual amount to all of its members.AThe cooperative announced last week that due to increasing sales in the tri-county areaBThe cooperative announced that due to increasing sales last week in the tri-county areaCLast week, the cooperative announced that due to sales increasing on a tri-county basisDLast week, the cooperative, which announced increasing sales in the tri-county areaEDue to increasing sales in the tri-county area the cooperative announced last week
单选题The company has（）some major changes in the last five years.AstoodBsufferedCundergoneDtolerated
单选题The business talk _____ next week when the CEO of your company comes.Awas heldBis being heldCwill be heldDhas been held
问答题Practice 6 A: What is important when...? Keeping excellent staff ● Attractive salary ● Comfortable company culture ●Opportunities to improve B: What is important when...? Selling a new product ●Discount ●Quality ● Advertising
单选题In the last few years, our company ______ a great deal of attention to building up company culture.ApaysBwould payCis payingDhas been paying
单选题New adopted regulation of master shall（）when maintaining the security of the ship.Atake actions by he company’s orderBtake actions by the ship owner’s orderCexercise his professional judgmentDexercise his professional judgment but be constrained by the company
单选题—You don’t forget when we borrowed that reference book, do you?—I can’t remember now but _____ sometime last week?Amight it beBcould it beCcould it have beenDshould it have been
问答题Practice 9 ● You are the Purchasing Manager for a large company. Last month you decided to look for a new supplier for the stationery and office equipment that your company uses. You have found a new supplier, Compass Office Goods Ltd. ● Write a memo to your company’s department heads: ● explaining why you looked for a new supplier. ● saying who the new supplier is. ● asking for feedback about the goods that they supply. ● Write 40—50 words.