There are a lot of people who've campaigned against nuclear over the years, including fossil fuel companies. I think it's a stretch to think nuclear companies campaigned against waste storage in hopes that a future court case would eliminate their fees...especially since the consequence is that they have to store the waste locally at the plant site, which isn't free either. It's reasonable that if they're paying for that, they shouldn't also have to pay for a repository that doesn't exist.
Meanwhile, fossil plants dump their waste into the atmosphere and don't pay a dime for it.
Campaign against it? While in the short term they certainly don't want to pay for a non-service, they are 100% behind the government taking away their waste problem.
There is a bunch of defense-related politics here. The US doesn't generally reprocess nuclear waste into useful things (ie new fuel). The DOE, who control nuclear weapons, like to have a huge pile of waste lying around because some of it can be reprocessed into weapons-grade material. Yucca would have been more a stockpile than disposal site. That's why more practical means of burial (deep cores) were never really discussed. They didn't want to put it somewhere out of reach.
Meanwhile, fossil plants dump their waste into the atmosphere and don't pay a dime for it.