Governments like to try to bury bad news announcements, and using a Friday in the dog days of summer is usually a good time to try it.
And that's what the B.C. Liberal government did last week, with a bolt from the blue announcement that it was ending its decadelong fight with the state of California and electrical utilities there over whether B.C. Hydro acted legally when it sold power to the state in 2000 and 2001.
It's been a fascinating story since it first unfolded and the sudden end to it leaves a lot of questions unanswered. And the way it has ended has also cost British Columbia a lot of money.
The out-of-court settlement cost B.C. Hydro $750 million. Considering the government's fierce insistence for years that it would never back down because nothing illegal occurred, it's extraordinary it is actually writing a cheque to the Americans.
The saga began in the winter of 2000-01, as California experienced an energy crisis brought on by a number of factors.
Quite simply, California couldn't generate enough electricity on its own to keep up with demand, and so was forced to look outside the state for help. One of the energy companies California officials called was B.C. Hydro, which sells surplus electricity it generates through its export subsidiary, Powerex.
At the time, I interviewed the energy traders responsible for selling the power to California. They use a complex system that requires them to ensure that B.C. energy demands are met before they start moving power.
They also are acutely aware of the price of electricity at any given moment. It is traded on an open, "spot" market and the price can vary at different times of day. In this situation, because California was in such a desperate and precarious situation, the price on that open market had skyrocketed and that meant B.C. Hydro, through Powerex, made a lot of money selling its power (roughly about $1 billion).
At the time, B.C. Hydro was viewed as a saviour by California.
However, within months, the Americans' view had dimmed considerably, as they began to suspect they had been "played" by an energy market that had been manipulated by outside interests, including Powerex.
The company was accused, in a lawsuit, of engaging in a lot of "Enronlike games" that effectively and illegally fixed energy prices through manipulation and deceitfulness.
Enron would mislead California's power grid operators on how much power was needed, in order to increase scarcity and boost prices, and then sell at the artificially high rate. It also created false "congestion" on the grid, and then charged huge prices to relieve the congestion.
Powerex was accused of being part of these schemes, although the company has strongly denied the allegations. It has argued it was paying by all the rules, and had simply taken advantage of the looseness of those rules.
Energy Minister Bill Bennett has argued that throwing in the towel in this fight fends off what could have been an even more expensive outcome if U.S. courts had ultimately ruled against Powerex.
He may be right, but his predecessors in that portfolio had adamantly maintained there was not a shred of evidence to implicate Powerex in any wrongdoing.
So what's changed? No real explanation has been provided, other than the claim that Powerex wants to "move forward and enhance (its) relationship with California".
If California ever goes through another such energy crisis, perhaps Powerex may think twice before picking up the phone when the Americans come calling.
Keith Baldrey is chief political reporter for Global BC.
