MBA考试

【单选题】
A、deal is a deal-except, apparently, whenEntergy is involveD、The company, a major energy supplier in NewEngland, 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.
EitherEntergy 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 andEntergy’s management-especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe.Enraged byEntergy’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 SupremeCourt 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 hadEntergy 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 RegulatoryCommission (NRC、reviews the company’s application, it should keep it mind what promises fromEntergy are worth.
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
网考网参考答案：D
网考网解析：
[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，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，这在之前的文章中也是多次提到，因此答案选择D。 document.getElementById("warp").style.display="none"; document.getElementById("content").style.display="block"; 查看试题解析出处>>