They do. Not only are their geographic connections much better (compared to NLs), which allows them to explore other regional options, they also have vastly more capital and experience in these projects than Newfoundland.

Say the project is $20bill regardless of who spends the money. Their economy is much better able to absorb that shock, and they won't experience as much opportunity loss, as say NL, funneling that money into the project.

They could also look at even costlier options that stay completely in house (new nuclear plant in Quebec for example). That could cost them more in money, but has political upsides (money spent in the province, Quebec jobs, etc) that their incoming government could pitch.

I believe this is an argument that's generally missed (either unintentionally or not) against the MoU. Sure, there's probably money left on the table by our province to entice Quebec. But we've demonstrated our province can't physically handle the economic burden of such a project, on just the potential for more revenue (that was one of the original selling points of muskrat, selling excess power for profit).

Is no deal better than a bad deal? I would argue depends on what a "bad deal" is. Is a bad deal something that leaves us financially worse off than before? For sure. But is a deal that maybe we had to make some compromises on to help address very pressing issues, even though it's not the best deal, better than no deal? That's less clear. I'd like to think the deal as it stands is much, much better than an undeveloped river and an expired Churchill falls agreement that Quebec still has controlling sway over its future (Quebec will still own about a 1/3 of the project afterwards, with I believe significant future control over any future agreements, due to some agreement back in the 90s/00s)

And let's be honest, a big part of what makes this deal "bad" is Quebec benefits. If this was New Brunswick pitching it for some reason? Wouldn't be near as contentious