【文章內(nèi)容簡(jiǎn)介】 m status syndrome _______, (A) was first accepted by the World Health Organisation in 2020 (B) was proposed by Professor Marmot to describe social changes (C) is used to expose the major causes of health inequalities (D) is used to show the correlation between sanitation and infection to the passage, the effects of status syndrome _______. (A) can only be found from those living at the bottom of the society (B) usually are greater among those from the lower classes (C) are the same on people from each ladder of the social hierarchy (D) extend universally from the bottom to the top of the social hierarchy Marmot proposed that empowerment should ________. (A) mainly include technical and medical advancement (B) be equal to access to material necessities (C) be material, psychosocial and political (D) be the final answer to the social problem of health gap can be concluded from the passage? (A) Health inequality is closely related to social hierarchies. (B) The causes of the causes of health gap lie in the differences between rich and poor countries. (C) Social ranking should be ultimately abolished. (D) The rich countries should give more assistance to poor countries to fill the health gap. Questions 610 In Idaho39。s Snake River Valley, where potato farmers depend on electric pumps to water their crops, the state39。s largest power pany hopes to stand tradition on its head and profit by selling farmers less, not more, electricity. To do that, Idaho Power is vastly expanding its energyefficiency programs for 395,000 residential customers, small businesses, and farmers. Usually the more customers save, the less utilities make. But under an innovative deal with state regulators in March, Idaho Power gets paid for its plants and equipment and boosts profits by winning incentive payments for reducing electric demand. It39。s an idea that appears to be catching on as legislatures fret about global warming and utilities scramble to meet rising demand without the increasing harassment and cost of building new power plants. Idaho is among 13 states whose regulators have either adopted or proposed measures in the past year to decouple utility profit from electricity production. Decoupling is advancing even faster for naturalgas utilities, with 25 states either adopting or proposing decoupling plans in recent years. This wave toward 39。decoupling39。 is clearly gathering momentum, says Martin Kushler of the American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy in Washington. More states seem to be calling every week to find out about this. Although California pioneered the idea 25 years ago—and strengthened incentives and penalties last month—interest is picking up again because of global warming, experts say. The main idea is that by rearranging the incentive structure, regulators can give utilities clear incentives to push energy efficiency and conservation without hurting their bottom lines. Under the new rules in California, for example, electric utilities could make as much as $150 million extra if they can persuade Californians to save some $2 billion worth of power, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is a vital step in the globalwarming fight, says Audrey Chang, an NRDC researcher. It represents, we hope, a historic shift toward decoupling that is going to help bend the energy demand curve downwards. Beside Idaho, states that this year adopted decoupling for some or all of its electric power industry include New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. At least nine other states have seen major decoupling proposals this year. Idaho Power is happy that its key fixed costs—plants and equipment—are now separated from variable costs of electricity sales such as fuel. Regulators annually readjust those fixed rates—up or down—a maximum of 3 percent to ensure that the pany gets no more or less than it has been regulated to receive. But customers should benefit, too, as utility efficiency programs cut energy use and energy bills—something the pany is trying hard to do so it can win a bonus if it meets or exceeds energycutting goals. Before there was almost a disincentive to go hard at efficiency because we weren39。t recovering our fixed costs, says Mike Youngblood, an analyst for Idaho Power. Now the anticipation is that we will recover our fixed cost, no more or less. And our customers will see their bill go down if they invest in energy efficiency. One key reason utilities are often willing to decouple or even leading proponents of the proposals is because the costs of building a power plant has risen dramatically. A 500megawatt coalfired plant that cost $1 billion just a few years ago might cost $ billion today, industry experts say. Add to that growing uncertainty about future costs. Globalwarming legislation could put a price of $30 per ton on carbondioxide emissions from power plants. That could make coal, the cheapest power today, more costly. Another factor is the rising munity opposition to coalfired power plant construction. In North Carolina, where regulators recently refused a Duke Energy Corp. proposal to build a power plant, the pany has instead put forward a controversial decoupling proposal. The plan would pay the pany to meet efficiency standards, although consumer advocates and even environmental groups question whether it39。s a good deal for ratepayers. In fact, some consumer advocates have major reservations about decoupling overall. Unfortunately, we39。re seeing utilities trying to use decoupling as a blank check, says Charles Acquard, executive director of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates in Silver Spring, Md. We39。re not absolutely opposed to decoupling. It39。s how you do it that39。s critical. is the main idea of the passage? (A) Electric utilities lose more profits from reducin