2012英语阅读理解翻译二

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.
一笔交易是一笔交易——显然，除非英特吉参与其中。

该公司是新英格兰州的一家主要能源供应商，上周在佛蒙特州宣布违反了遵守严格核法规的长期承诺，这在佛蒙特州引发了合理的愤怒。

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.
相反，该公司确实做了它长期以来承诺的事情，它不会在联邦法院挑战佛蒙特州规则的合宪性，这是维持其佛蒙特州扬基核电站运行的绝望努力的一部分。

这是一个惊人的举动。

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.
这场冲突自2002年以来一直在出现，当时该公司收购了佛蒙特州唯一的核电站，即弗农的一座老化的反应堆。

作为获得州批准的条件，该公司同意寻求州监管机构的许可，在2012年之后运营。

2006年，该州更进一步，要求工厂许可证的任何延长都必须得到佛蒙特州立法机构的批准。

然后，这个公司也继续走下去了。

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.
要么英特吉从没有真正打算履行这些承诺，要么它根本没有预见到接下来会发生什么。

一系列事故，包括207年冷却塔部分坍塌和发现地下管道系统泄漏，引发了对佛蒙特州扬基公司安全和英特吉管理的严重质疑——尤其是在该公司对这条管道做出了误导性声明之后。

被恩特吉的行为激怒，佛蒙特州参议院去年以26票对4票反对延长。

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.
现在，该公司突然声称，由于2006年的立法，2002年的协议无效，而且只有联邦政府对核问题拥有监管权力。

该案中的法律问题很模糊：尽管最高法院裁定各州确实对核能有一些监管权威，但法律学者表示，佛蒙特州的案件将为这些权力的延伸范围提供一个开创先例的测试。

当然，如果每个
州都有自己的规则，可能会对拼凑起来的法规有合理的担忧。

但如果英特吉信守诺言，这场辩论就无关紧要了。

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.
该公司似乎已经得出结论，它在佛蒙特州的声誉已经受到严重损害，以至于它指出，与该州开战将会造成损失。

但应该会有后果。

允许经营一个核电站是一种公益信托基金。

英特吉在美国经营着其他11个反应堆，包括普利茅斯的朝圣者核电站。

为了保证安全经营朝圣者，该公司已经申请联邦许可，再开放20年。

但当核监管委员会(NRC)审查该公司的申请时，它应该记住Entergy的承诺有什么价值。