評論
打印
A deal is a deal—except, apparently, when Entergy is involved.
協議就是協議——但顯然的，Entergy公司就是個例外。
The company, a major energy supplier in New England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced
該公司是新英格蘭地區的一家主要能源供應商。當它上星期宣布將違背“遵守嚴格的核安全條例”這一長期許諾時，
it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the strict nuclear regulations.
在佛蒙特州激起了憤怒，這種憤怒合乎情理。
Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not:
然而，Entergy公司恰恰做出了它過去一直承諾不會做的事：
challenge the constitutionality of Vermont's rules in the federal court,
在聯邦法庭上質疑佛蒙特州核規則的合憲性。
as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running.
這是它為了使佛蒙特州揚基核電廠繼續運營而做出的拼死努力的一部分。
It's a stunning move.
這是一個驚人之舉。
The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont's only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor in Vernon.
當2002年時，公司在弗農買下佛蒙特州僅有的核電廠，一個日漸老化的反應堆，這場爭議便已浮出水面。
As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012.
作為政府允許買賣的條件，公司當時同意，2012年以后的運營許可證須向州立監管機構申請。
In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring that any extension of the plant's license be subject to Vermont legislature's approval.
在2006年，政府更進一步，該核電廠的任何延期申請，都需該州立法機構的批準。
Then, too, the company went along.
當時，該公司也同意了。
Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didn't foresee what would happen next.
或者是Entergy從未想過要遵守那些約定，或者是它沒有預料到接下來所發生的事情。
A string of accidents, including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage,
一連串的事故，包括2007年冷卻塔的局部塌陷、地下管道系統的泄漏，
raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee's safety and Entergy's management
人們對佛蒙特州揚基核電廠的安全性以及Entergy公司的管理產生了質疑
especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe.
尤其在管道事故錯誤性的陳述之后。
Enraged by Entergy's behavior, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.
由于被Entergy的行為激怒了，去年，佛蒙特州參議院以26:4否決了它的延期申請。
Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation,
現在，該公司由于2006年法規突然聲明2002的條約無效，
and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues.
但只有聯邦政府才有對核問題制定規章的權力。
The legal issues in the case are obscure:
此案件中的法律問題還模糊不清：
whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power,
雖然最高法院判定州政府對地方核電廠有管理權，
legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend.
法學者認為佛蒙特州一案將為“州政府的權力究竟有多大”提供一個先例。
Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules.
當然，假如各州都設立自己的法規，“補丁法規”的擔憂也是合理的。
But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be beside the point.
但如果Entergy遵守約定，這場爭議便也就毫不相關了。
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.
這家公司看起來已經推斷自己在佛蒙特州的榮譽盡毀，繼而一無所有，所以堅持與政府對抗。
But there should be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a public trust.
但這也僅僅是推斷。允許使用核能源是公眾的信任。
Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States, including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth.
Entergy在美國經營了包括普利茅斯的核圣地在內的11種其他的反應堆。
Pledging to run Pilgrim safely, the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years.
為了安全地經營圣地的安全，公司向聯邦許申請繼續開放20年。
But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the company's application, it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.
但是，當核條約組織審核公司應用使，它應當注意Entergy所應允的是否值得。
