WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 (now Columbia Generating Station) should not be confused with the proposed Skagit/Hanford plant. Complete the following sentence: WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 (now Columbia Generating Station) should not be confused with the proposed Skagit/Hanford plant. Skagit/Hanford<unk> was a proposal advanced by a consortium of utilities led by Puget Sound Power &amp; Light (40% share) and joined by Portland General Electric (30%), Pacific Light and Power (20%) and Washington Water Power (10%) to build a two-unit plant north of Seattle in the Skagit Valley.<unk> Skagit/Hanford<unk> was a proposal advanced by a consortium of utilities led by Puget Sound Power &amp; Light (40% share) and joined by Portland General Electric (30%), Pacific Light and Power (20%) and Washington Water Power (10%) to build a two-unit plant north of Seattle in the Skagit Valley. Skagit site was directly above a major earthquake fault.<unk> Skagit site was directly above a major earthquake fault. <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk>
Three Mile Island accident in 1979, Skagit County voters forced the consortium to relocate the proposed Skagit plant to the Hanford site. Skagit/Hanford<unk> had not progressed beyond the initial engineering design phases before the plant was scuttled.<unk> Skagit/Hanford<unk> had not progressed beyond the initial engineering design phases before the plant was scuttled. 1978 Battelle Northwest report stated the Hanford site could support twenty or more nuclear reactors.