After encountering opposition from local residents and the city of New York, and in the face of skepticism concerning safety from the Atomic Energy Commission, the proposal was withdrawn in 1964.

[5] Although Con Ed's chairman Harland C. Forbes testified to Congress that concerns were "rather silly," former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) David E. Lilienthal told the committee that he would "not dream of living in the borough of Queens if there was a large atomic power plant in that region..." Con Ed noted that the existing conventional power station at Ravenswood was a source of air pollution, and that locating nuclear generation outside the city would increase costs for transmission lines.

[5] On August 6, a New York Times editorial asserted that Con Ed had failed to make a case for siting a nuclear facility in the heart of a metropolitan area.

[5] Lilienthal's remarks drew opposition from sitting AEC chairman Glenn T. Seaborg, stating that he would "not fear having my family reside within the vicinity of a modern nuclear power plant built and operated under our regulations and controls."

[5] On January 6, 1964, Con Ed withdrew the application, stating that they had arranged for the purchase of cheaper hydroelectric power from Canada from the proposed Churchill Falls Generating Station, completed 1971-1974.

After these proposals were met with opposition, Con Ed observed an informal agreement that no nuclear facilities would be built closer to New York than the Indian Point Energy Center in Buchanan.