Was PJM Lying Then, Or Is PJM Lying Now?

PJM is all over the map about the value of the Transource Independence Energy Connection.  Based on PJM's last testimony to the Maryland PSC, the recent re-route of the eastern segment would result in increased costs and decreased benefits.  PJM said this when it was trying to avoid the eastern re-route.

Conceptual Alternative 3A’s costs are between $54 million to $94 million more than Project 9A’s most recent cost estimate;

As further explained in Mr. Horger’s Rebuttal Testimony, Conceptual Alternative 3A’s total estimated congestion benefits are approximately $267 million less than Project 9A’s total estimated congestion benefits;

Conceptual Alternative 3A has a lower Benefit/Cost Ratio than Project 9A (1.39 – 1.52 for Conceptual Alternative 3A compared to 2.17 for Project 9A).

The net benefit PJM calculated for the re-route at that time was $790M.  It barely squeaked by the 1.25 to 1 required benefit cost ratio.

Now PJM says the re-route has a cost benefit of 1.66, or maybe it's 2.10?

Was PJM lying then, or are they lying now?

PJM is using a huge assortment of mismatched numbers to re-evaluate the benefit to cost ratio.

In Transource's settlement agreement with eastern route parties, it uses these numbers.

Transource MD, PPRP and Staff stipulate and accept that PJM's most recent market efficiency analysis of Project 9A with the Alternative IEC Portion, with the reconfiguration of the IEC Project (as set forth in this Settlement Agreement), reflects an overall benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.66 (based on total estimated project capital costs of $478,48 million) and a total 15-year net load payment benefit of $844.8 million.

These new numbers are supposedly based on a PJM analysis from September 25, 2019.  What happened to the $790M estimate?  How did it get to $844?  Isn't that convenient?  Suddenly, the eastern re-route provides more value now that PJM is desperate to get this project approved by hook or by crook.  And it looks like the new costs of the project are more than PJM estimated.  It went from a high estimate of $466M to an actual estimate of $478M.

But we're not done yet.  PJM recently made a presentation at a meeting that claimed the cost of IEC, with the re-route, was $383.63M as of September 2019.  And the benefits number has blossomed as the costs fell.  The benefit number now is $855.19M.  This now brings the benefit-cost ratio to 2.10.  PJM claims these numbers are from a September 2019 re-evaluation. 

Is this the same September re-evaluation where Transource got the numbers it plugged into its settlement agreement?  How did the benefit magically go up $10M if PJM and Transource were using the same set of numbers?  And why is Transource using a different cost figure (nearly $100M more) than PJM is using in its calculations?

What are the real numbers?  We may never know because PJM seems to be using magic math to justify whatever it wants to do on any given day.  Because PJM wants this project so badly, the re-route is suddenly cost effective, when it wasn't before.  The benefit has ballooned to provide a new cushion for increased costs.  Isn't that convenient?

Who believes PJM?  Not me.  They've contradicted themselves too many times over the life of this project.  Either they were lying when they said the re-route couldn't work, or they are lying now when they say it could.  I'm going to go with PJM was lying both times.  This project can no longer be economic.