Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
(Al Hartmann | The Salt Lake Tribune) Kennecott Utah Copper spokesman Kyle Bennett.
Utah lawmakers try to calm clash between Kennecott, Rocky Mountain Power
Kennecott vs. Rocky Mountain Power » With thousands of copper company’s jobs at stake, lawmakers try to broker an agreement.
First Published Feb 12 2014 07:40 pm • Last Updated Feb 12 2014 11:07 pm

Lawmakers may avert a battle royale between two of the state’s largest companies — Kennecott Utah Copper and Rocky Mountain Power — after working out a potential solution Wednesday afternoon.

Both sides had been stockpiling lobbyists in anticipation of a drag-out fight over Kennecott’s effort to trim its electrical costs by pulling itself off the Rocky Mountain grid and instead retrofitting its own power plant or buying electricity elsewhere.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

It got to the point that Kennecott warned lawmakers that, if the company couldn’t get the legislation it sought, it may shorten the life span of the massive mining operation that employs thousands of Utahns.

But the building tensions were substantially tamped down during meetings Wednesday afternoon where Rocky Mountain’s biggest concern appears to have been addressed.

Senate Majority Whip Stuart Adams, R-Layton, released a bill Wednesday night to address Kennecott’s concerns. He said negotiations were positive and he’s hopeful outstanding issues will be resolved.

"It’s been surprisingly good. I don’t know if it will end good," he said. "We have two of the great corporate citizens that have been involved in all of our lives and communities and they’re trying to work together. And we’re sure they’ll be able to resolve something that is positive for everyone involved and for our economy and our state."

Kennecott has been under severe pressure since an enormous landslide last April disrupted operations. Combined with a tight global market, Kennecott’s parent company, Rio Tinto, has been forced to take a careful look at its future spending.

In December, Rio Tinto reported it was slashing its planned capital expenditures by more than half, to $8 billion.

It’s with that backdrop that Kennecott went looking to cut power costs and squeeze out other efficiencies, warning legislators that the long-term life of one of Utah’s oldest and largest economic engines might be cut short.

"They don’t want to push public policy over a panic," Adams said.


story continues below
story continues below

Kennecott has been focusing all of its efforts in digging out from the mammoth landslide.

Kyle Bennett, a spokesman for the company, said it has moved 26 million tons of earth. The bad news: Another 100 million tons of material are left at the bottom of the mine and the company will not return to normal operations until 2016.

"There are a lot of uncertainties because what we’re facing is really unprecedented," said Bennett.

Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, R-Sandy, said in earlier meetings with Kennecott representatives that they have laid out how Rio Tinto has to make decisions on where it invests its money long-term.

Without resolving its power-supply issue, the parent company is less likely to invest in Utah and commit to the future of the mine, he said.

"If they can address this issue of power, they can make some longer-term commitments to keep mining there and to the jobs that are important to our valley," Niederhauser said.

Without a resolution, how long and how deep the company would mine would be up in the air, said Adams.

"We’re very concerned about that. We’d like to see a way to create a win-win solution," said Niederhauser.

So Adams’ bill gives Kennecott the ability to generate 250 megawatts of its own electricity — which would require re-engineering its current power plant to be powered by natural gas — or either contracting with other providers or buying power on the market.

Rocky Mountain Power was concerned that, as a regulated monopoly, it is legally required to provide power to consumers in its area.

That could mean the power company could be forced to be a backup provider, which would mean keeping a huge reserve of power, at the expense to the company or possibly ratepayers.

Next Page >


Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment


About Reader Comments


Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Videos
Jobs
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.