"Neither of these conclusions comports with our view of the law or of our proper role as an owner and operator of nuclear power plants," Hay wrote. "Therefore, after carefully evaluating our goals, (Florida Power and Light) has concluded that at this time PFS is no longer in our strategic interest and that for the foreseeable future we will put no further effort into developing that project."

The Florida utility was one of six investors that promised Hatch and Utah Republican Sen. Bob Bennett three years ago it would not support PFS beyond the licensing phase.

The July 8, 2002, letter said, "We will pledge to both of you that our companies will commit no funds to construction of the PFS facility past the licensing phase so long as the Yucca Mountain project is approved by Congress and repository development proceeds in a timely fashion."

Southern Co., one of the six that signed the letter, said last Wednesday that it would no longer support PFS. Xcel Energy, which did not agree to the first letter, said it "will hold in abeyance future investments" into the construction phase of PFS as long as "there is apparent and continuing progress" toward a federal interim storage site, reprocessing or permanent disposal of nuclear waste. Xcel holds the largest portion of the consortium at about 37 percent.

Genoa Fuel Tech, a subsidiary of Dairyland Power Cooperative, is the only original investor left that has not made any changes to its plans. It has a non-operating nuclear power plant along the Mississippi River that it wants to decommission, but it has no place to put the waste.

Charles San Crainte, vice president of generation at Dairyland Power Cooperative, said the company has needed a storage solution since 1987 and right now it "judges PFS to be a better decision for us." He said over the 11 years the site has been in play, the storage needs of those involved have changed, but his company still has an immediate need for a storage option.

"We wouldn't be in the position to fund that independently," San Crainte said.

But Southern California Edison is in the opposite situation. Spokesman Ray Golden said the company has not made any financial contributions to PFS since 1999. It originally joined because it did not have dry storage for nuclear waste on site, but now it does, so the need for PFS is not as great.

"We have no immediate plan to store at PFS," he said, adding that a decision on whether to move forward with investments in construction would have to be made at that point.

Todd Schneider, spokesman for First Energy, based in Akron, Ohio, said the company's commitment through the licensing phase is still valid, and it would look at PFS's potential and Yucca's progress before making any other decisions. The project has not technically moved into the construction phase yet.

Another investor, Entergy Nuclear, said it still stands behind the position it took in the July 8 letter, manager of nuclear communications Carl Crawford said. Entergy inherited interest in the project when it bought a nuclear power plant in New York. Crawford said the company is still with the project at this point.

Managers at American Electric Power were not available Tuesday, so the public affairs office could not comment on its latest status with PFS.

---

E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com