Article content continued

As someone tweeted this week: “We’ll need Site C to power Tesla trucks.”

Evidently, they are only going to be sold in B.C. How else to justify the gigantuous spread between B.C.’s and, say, Quebec’s forecasts?

In 2016, Hydro-Quebec estimated its demand would rise by an average of 0.4 per cent annually over the next decade.

There’s a long ways to go to hit even the low end of Campbell’s fateful forecast.

B.C. consumed 62,467 gigawatt-hours of electricity in 2010. Last year, it had jumped to 62,951 gigawatt-hours, an increase of 0.8 per cent.

But that’s only seven years. How about two decades? B.C. was home to 3.9 million residents in 1996, there were 1.5 million households across the province, GDP had hit $139.9 billion, and we consumed 64,664 gigawatt-hours of electricity.

By 2016, B.C.’s population had grown to 4.75 million, there were 468,000 more households, GDP had risen to $240.8 billion, and we consumed 1,713 less gigawatt-hours.

It wasn’t a rogue year. In 15 of the last 20 years, we’ve used less electricity than we did in 1996.

Then there’s the tiny matter of settling the bill.

From Campbell’s $6.6 billion to former Premier Christy Clark’s initial $7.9 billion — “a bargain” Hydro called it at the time — to Premier John Horgan’s $10.7 billion, Site C won’t be cheap no matter who slices it.

Following the B.C. government’s 2014 all systems go announcement for Site C, Kieron Stopforth — a lead hydro analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in London — observed that Site C’s “capital expense is pretty high. The cost range for most large-scale hydropower plants around the world is between $1 million and $6 million per megawatt. That compares with more than $7 million for Site C.”