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 state’s 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 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.

    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 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.

答案精析：该段开篇表明A deal is a deal（一言为定），然后指明安特吉公司并非如此，暗示了安特吉公司的违约行为，之后详细解释：安特吉公司宣布将reneging on承诺，而这种行为provoked justified outrage（激发了正当的民愤）。全文都在讲安吉特公司未能履行承诺及其造成的影响，所以此处应该是安特吉公司违背了承诺，故C选项为正确答案。

错项排除：安特吉公司的违约行为引发民愤，应受到谴责，而非因为安特吉公司谴责承诺的行为引发民愤，故A选项错误；B选项和D选项都是遵守承诺的含义，不应该引起民愤，故错误。

长难句分析：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.

本句为复合句，句子主干是The company…provoked justified outrage，是主谓宾结构，a major energy supplier是The company的同位语，in New England是地点状语，表明公司所在位置。in Vermont last week是状语，表明事件发生的地点和时间。when引导时间状语从句，其中嵌套了省略that的宾语从句it was…regulations作announced的宾语，to abide by the state’s strict nuclear regulations为不定式作后置定语修饰commitment，指明其内容。

句意为：该公司是新英格兰地区的主要能源供应商，它上周宣布要违反之前的一项长期协议，不再遵守该州严苛的核能法规，这在佛蒙特州引发了正当的民愤。