BHP in dispute over cheap power
The South African power utility Eskom has requested users to cut power usage 10 per cent as it seeks ways to cope with rising demand and declining power reserves.
And, amid rising speculation over the low price BHP pays for its electricity under long-term contracts, Eskom has called on the country's energy regulator to review the price BHP pays.
"Our aluminium business has always paid more for electricity than the cost of generation and, for many years, has paid well above the market rate for power," BHP said in an emailed statement, according to local media reports.
The business newspaper Beeld reported late last week that Eskom is selling electricity to BHP's aluminium smelters, Hillside in Richards Bay and Mozal in Mozambique, for half the R41¢ (4¢) it costs to produce one kilowatt-hour.
Under the agreement, BHP pays a reported R23¢/kWh at the Hillside smelter and R34¢ at Mozal, which is substantially less than the R1.61 paid by industrial power users and the R1.40 rate paid by households.
"While the agreements will now be in the public domain, we remain firm in our belief that the negotiated pricing agreements are legally binding," BHP said.
BHP entered into its initial contract with Eskom in 1992, with the contract to run until 2028.
However, faced with the need to fund the development of more power stations to cater to rising electricity demand, Eskom has been seeking to renegotiate the contract since at least 2009.
The contracts were entered into on the basis that Eskom's excess capacity was not going to be absorbed through normal economic growth for many years, even decades, although that has changed.
The price was also related to the international price of aluminium and the rand/US dollar exchange rate, BHP said, so that the true price paid could be calculated only over the full life of the contracts.
BHP consumed almost 10 per cent of Eskom's output, Eskom spokeswoman Hillary Joffe said.
The average tariff of other large mining companies was R56¢/kWh, Ms Joffe said, according to the reports.
Eskom had also signed a special agreement with BHP, which included an "interruptibility" clause allowing the utility to shut BHP's smelters for a set period when the grid came under pressure, she said.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
The dispute centres on the price BHP pays for electricity to run its aluminium smelters in southern Africa. Eskom has publicly questioned the low long‑term prices BHP pays and has asked the country’s energy regulator to review those contracts amid concerns about rising demand and possible power shortages this winter.
According to local reports cited in the article, BHP pays about R23¢/kWh at the Hillside smelter and R34¢/kWh at the Mozal smelter. Those rates are substantially lower than the R1.61/kWh reported for other industrial users and the R1.40/kWh households reportedly pay.
Eskom says it needs to fund development of more power stations to meet rising electricity demand and shrinking reserves. Because of that funding pressure and speculation that BHP’s contracted prices are well below production cost, Eskom has requested a regulatory review of the prices.
BHP entered its initial contract with Eskom in 1992, and that contract is reported to run until 2028.
The interruptibility clause in the agreement allows Eskom to shut BHP’s smelters for a set period when the national grid comes under pressure. Eskom says this clause is part of the special arrangements it signed with BHP.
Eskom said BHP consumed almost 10 per cent of its output. By comparison, the article reports the average tariff for other large mining companies at about R56¢/kWh, which is higher than the reported rates for BHP’s smelters.
BHP told local media that its aluminium business has 'always paid more for electricity than the cost of generation' and for many years has paid 'well above the market rate for power.' The company also said the negotiated pricing agreements are legally binding.
Investors should monitor the regulator’s review process and any public updates from Eskom or BHP, since the dispute involves long‑term contract terms (1992–2028), interruptibility arrangements and national power supply concerns. The article highlights rising demand, potential winter shortages and Eskom’s efforts to renegotiate contracts as key developments to follow.

