well, doesn't mean they said i can't run, only that they don't want to invest the money needed to run it.  at least that's how it sounds to me.

If you had a product that was intended for business-to-business use, like CryEngine, you wouldn't be able to predict every project that people wanted to use it for, so you'd make it as multi-use as possible.

On the other hand, with a product for internal use, you can pick and chose where you want to use it based on where you project the greatest potential profit.  Let's say you estimate very little profit on the PSP in terms of games where you might want to invest your resources.  In that case, the time and money to optimize your internal tools for PSP development would have to be deducted from any projected profit; if the projected profit was insignificant, then you'd most likely not want to sink resources into that area.  Some people act as though there is no cost involved in this kind of thing, when any time you have employees working on something, that's overhead, and it must be accounted for.

If EA decided that Wii U development is not a high yield investment, then they might weigh all the costs of putting their titles on the system against it.  My guess is that they went into testing Frostbite on the Wii U with the idea in mind that if it required extensive modification, then it wouldn't be worth the investment, as they didn't expect much revenue from Wii U versions of their games.  They probably also concluded that most Wii U owners who buy EA games probably already own a PS3/360, which would make much of that investment redundant, and thus a waste of resources. 

As I've said before, it's pretty clear to me that EA is cutting costs and eliminating superfluous spending.  Unfortunately for the Wii U, I think they consider potential profits on that console too low in relation to the costs.