Energy Sourcing at a Steel Manufacturer Due to deregulation, a large steel manufacturer in Pennsylvania decided...
Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!
Question:
Transcribed Image Text:
Energy Sourcing at a Steel Manufacturer Due to deregulation, a large steel manufacturer in Pennsylvania decided to open up its energy-spending contract to a variety of existing and new energy suppliers. Until now, each of the steel plants had its own contract with the local energy provider. The aim was to identify potential new entrants as well as include existing local suppliers. The strategy development team included building and property managers, engineering, plant stakeholders, and purchasing managers. Initially, the team decided to test their energy sourcing strategy with a single facility contract. Of their other facilities: • Pennsylvania - one facility considered had contracts expiring; the other is not yet in an openly competitive market, but will be in a year Maryland - competition arrives in two years New York - currently being served by a low cost hydroelectric provider - it is unlikely that anyone can compete with this provider Indiana - status of deregulation still unsure. For the facility in Pennsylvania new entrants were identified and researched by studying their websites, and were sent an RFP. As a result of this open RFP, four potential suppliers were identified and interviewed to identify their proposals for reducing the organizations' energy cost. This included the current supplier (Company A) and three new suppliers. Next, each supplier was invited to visit and present their case to the team, emphasizing why they should be the provider for this block of energy to the facilities. The following description of the utility evaluations illustrates how the team considered multiple criteria in evaluating each of the four suppliers: • • Company A Company A submitted the best response right from the start and continued to improve it as the selection process moved forward. All of the information requested was provided in a neat and organized fashion and was accompanied by additional facts about Company A. Some of the more interesting components of the offer included: A comprehensive Energy Analysis of the facility with recommendations on how to improve energy efficiency A pricing schedule which is dependant on the building's load factor A "Net 30 days" payment term with a 0.3% discount if payment is made within 10 days Access to a diverse group of energy service companies - The company's extensive experience within the energy market and with the steel (buying) company energy requirements especially at one of the steel company's larger facilities . The contact person with Company A came in to answer any questions the steel company had and was very helpful throughout the process. During the meeting the prices for the steel company's smaller accounts which were eligible for the customer choice program were also discussed; Company A was the first company to respond to this request. Company B Considering Company B called and asked if they could receive the distributed RFP, it seemed doubtful that they would be at all competitive; they were. Company B ended up being one of the final two competitors in the sourcing decision. Company B offered competitive pricing and a network that spans across the United States. They do not, however, possess any of their own generation. While this was obviously not a limiting factor, it did cause some concern. They do have some large accounts throughout the country and a positive track record but nothing that could really compete with the history the steel company had with Company A. In order to get the contract to service steel company's main building, Company B would have had to beat Company A in all areas and they just were not able to do so. Company B did propose some interesting pricing alternatives that caused the steel company to thoroughly consider what Company B had to offer. There were discussions concerning short term fixed pricing (3 or 6 months) that could then be adjusted to reflect the market for the remainder of the term of the contract or until the next adjustment point. There were discussions concerning longer-term contracts such as 22 or 24 months but none of those prices could beat what Company A offered.. There were also discussions concerning a savings sharing plan which would split the savings a drop in the market would cause even if the steel company had agreed to a fixed price over the life of the contract. Company B seems to be the wave of the future in electricity sales. They understand the market, and will definitely be considered when the steel company begins future projects. Company B's representative visited the building and was very knowledgeable and helpful during the meeting and throughout the entire sourcing process. Company C Company C chose not to complete the RFP but instead submitted the information they thought the steel company would like. They typed a few answers onto the RFP that was originally sent and gave the steel company a standardized packet of information to supplement it. In addition, the steel company was erroneously given the pricing information for a different company located in the Lehigh Valley Company C was competitive on pricing originally, but was absolutely unwilling to budge from this offer. A lower price offer put them out of the running. Although the affiliation with their parent offered a strong name and history, there was just too much of a price difference in the end. This affiliation should have given them the capacity needed to be price competitive since they were one of the few companies that did not have to buy extra capacity from someone else. Two representatives from Company C came to steel company's facility to explain the benefits of choosing Company C. While both seemed knowledgeable, they appeared more interested in putting on a show than in answering any questions the steel company may have had. Company D Expected to be a top contender, Company D was a definite disappointment. While able to offer almost everything the steel company would have liked to have seen from an electric company. Company D was not able to come anywhere close to the desired pricing. The pricing submitted by Company D was based purely on the market. Market prices for next summer have been bid up much higher than what the steel company would be willing to pay. Company D also felt that they should not bid for the steel company's smaller accounts due to Company D's market based pricing. They felt that the pricing they could provide would not be competitive and was therefore not worth submitting. They do understand that the steel company would like to do business with them in the future and they would like to work with steel company as well. A good relationship could develop from this even if the steel company is offering no business to Company D at this time. 1. Consider the different suppliers - which one would you select? What type of agreement would you use? 2. What are the risks and rewards to consider in this case? How can the team balance these risks and rewards? Energy Sourcing at a Steel Manufacturer Due to deregulation, a large steel manufacturer in Pennsylvania decided to open up its energy-spending contract to a variety of existing and new energy suppliers. Until now, each of the steel plants had its own contract with the local energy provider. The aim was to identify potential new entrants as well as include existing local suppliers. The strategy development team included building and property managers, engineering, plant stakeholders, and purchasing managers. Initially, the team decided to test their energy sourcing strategy with a single facility contract. Of their other facilities: • Pennsylvania - one facility considered had contracts expiring; the other is not yet in an openly competitive market, but will be in a year Maryland - competition arrives in two years New York - currently being served by a low cost hydroelectric provider - it is unlikely that anyone can compete with this provider Indiana - status of deregulation still unsure. For the facility in Pennsylvania new entrants were identified and researched by studying their websites, and were sent an RFP. As a result of this open RFP, four potential suppliers were identified and interviewed to identify their proposals for reducing the organizations' energy cost. This included the current supplier (Company A) and three new suppliers. Next, each supplier was invited to visit and present their case to the team, emphasizing why they should be the provider for this block of energy to the facilities. The following description of the utility evaluations illustrates how the team considered multiple criteria in evaluating each of the four suppliers: • • Company A Company A submitted the best response right from the start and continued to improve it as the selection process moved forward. All of the information requested was provided in a neat and organized fashion and was accompanied by additional facts about Company A. Some of the more interesting components of the offer included: A comprehensive Energy Analysis of the facility with recommendations on how to improve energy efficiency A pricing schedule which is dependant on the building's load factor A "Net 30 days" payment term with a 0.3% discount if payment is made within 10 days Access to a diverse group of energy service companies - The company's extensive experience within the energy market and with the steel (buying) company energy requirements especially at one of the steel company's larger facilities . The contact person with Company A came in to answer any questions the steel company had and was very helpful throughout the process. During the meeting the prices for the steel company's smaller accounts which were eligible for the customer choice program were also discussed; Company A was the first company to respond to this request. Company B Considering Company B called and asked if they could receive the distributed RFP, it seemed doubtful that they would be at all competitive; they were. Company B ended up being one of the final two competitors in the sourcing decision. Company B offered competitive pricing and a network that spans across the United States. They do not, however, possess any of their own generation. While this was obviously not a limiting factor, it did cause some concern. They do have some large accounts throughout the country and a positive track record but nothing that could really compete with the history the steel company had with Company A. In order to get the contract to service steel company's main building, Company B would have had to beat Company A in all areas and they just were not able to do so. Company B did propose some interesting pricing alternatives that caused the steel company to thoroughly consider what Company B had to offer. There were discussions concerning short term fixed pricing (3 or 6 months) that could then be adjusted to reflect the market for the remainder of the term of the contract or until the next adjustment point. There were discussions concerning longer-term contracts such as 22 or 24 months but none of those prices could beat what Company A offered.. There were also discussions concerning a savings sharing plan which would split the savings a drop in the market would cause even if the steel company had agreed to a fixed price over the life of the contract. Company B seems to be the wave of the future in electricity sales. They understand the market, and will definitely be considered when the steel company begins future projects. Company B's representative visited the building and was very knowledgeable and helpful during the meeting and throughout the entire sourcing process. Company C Company C chose not to complete the RFP but instead submitted the information they thought the steel company would like. They typed a few answers onto the RFP that was originally sent and gave the steel company a standardized packet of information to supplement it. In addition, the steel company was erroneously given the pricing information for a different company located in the Lehigh Valley Company C was competitive on pricing originally, but was absolutely unwilling to budge from this offer. A lower price offer put them out of the running. Although the affiliation with their parent offered a strong name and history, there was just too much of a price difference in the end. This affiliation should have given them the capacity needed to be price competitive since they were one of the few companies that did not have to buy extra capacity from someone else. Two representatives from Company C came to steel company's facility to explain the benefits of choosing Company C. While both seemed knowledgeable, they appeared more interested in putting on a show than in answering any questions the steel company may have had. Company D Expected to be a top contender, Company D was a definite disappointment. While able to offer almost everything the steel company would have liked to have seen from an electric company. Company D was not able to come anywhere close to the desired pricing. The pricing submitted by Company D was based purely on the market. Market prices for next summer have been bid up much higher than what the steel company would be willing to pay. Company D also felt that they should not bid for the steel company's smaller accounts due to Company D's market based pricing. They felt that the pricing they could provide would not be competitive and was therefore not worth submitting. They do understand that the steel company would like to do business with them in the future and they would like to work with steel company as well. A good relationship could develop from this even if the steel company is offering no business to Company D at this time. 1. Consider the different suppliers - which one would you select? What type of agreement would you use? 2. What are the risks and rewards to consider in this case? How can the team balance these risks and rewards?
Expert Answer:
Answer rating: 100% (QA)
Which company would you choose Company D This is because the company profit ... View the full answer
Related Book For
Posted Date:
Students also viewed these accounting questions
-
A new product is being designed by an engineering team at Odin Security. Several managers and employees from the cost accounting department and the marketing department are also on the team to...
-
A community is currently being served by a single self- serve gas station with six pumps. A competitor is opening a new facility with 12 pumps across town. Table 8.12 shows the travel times in...
-
A new product is being designed by an engineering team at Odin Security. Several managers and employees from the cost accounting department and the marketing department are also on the team to...
-
The mass of the crane?s boom is 9000 kg. Its weight acts at?G. The sum of the moments about?P?due to the boom?s weight, the force exerted at?B?by the cable?AB,?and the force exerted at?C?by the...
-
You currently hold a portfolio of three stocks, Delta, Gamma, and Omega. Delta has a volatility of 60%, Gamma has a volatility of 30%, and Omega has a volatility of 20%. Suppose you invest 50% of...
-
Lakeland Clothiers reported the following amounts in its 2013 financial statements. The 2012 amounts are given for comparison. Requirements 1. Compute Lakelands quick (acid-test) ratio at the end of...
-
In 1940, the family of Thomas Back entered into an oil-and-gas lease with the Inland Gas Corporation. The lease held that Inland would pay to Backs family 12 cents per thousand cubic feet of gas...
-
Suppose that a paper mill feeds a downstream box mill. For the downstream mill, the marginal profitability of producing boxes declines with volume. For example, the first unit of boxes increases...
-
A firm selling a normal good has a price elasticity of demand coefficient of 3.0 and an income elasticity of demand coefficient of 2.2. Assume that economists forecast a recession within the next...
-
The following transactions of Carswell Wholesale Inc. occurred in the month of September 2016: Date: Sept. 1Issued 200 common shares for $20,000. 4 To raise additional capital, Carswell borrowed...
-
Revenue Budget (2 marks) Production Budget (2 marks) Direct material usage budget (2 marks) Direct material purchase budget (2 marks) Direct manufacturing labour budget (2 marks) ...
-
4. The dipole moment of the HCl molecule is measured to be about 3.4 10-30 Cm. (a) If you assume the dipole can be modeled as H+ and Cl ions separated by a distances, what is s? (b) The bond length...
-
"In what ways do symbolic interactionists explore the nuanced dynamics of micro-level interactions and the construction of shared meanings to comprehend the formation and perpetuation of social...
-
n what ways do globalization and technological advancements impact social identities and cultural practices, and how do individuals and communities negotiate their sense of belonging and cultural...
-
ACC 111 Project Information - Project 1 - Why Accounting/Business/Human Resources, etc. This Project will consist of a discussion of why you chose your current major. In your conclusion, state the...
-
2.4. What is the intensity of radiation emitted by a hot desert (330 K) relative to that emitted by the strato- sphere over the South Pole during July (190 K)?
-
Leront's, Inc. had earnings per share of 5.25. The company announced that it plows back 60% of its earnings into projects returning 12%. If you require a rate of return of 9%, how much are you...
-
suppose a nickel-contaminated soil 15 cm deep contained 800 mg/kg Ni, Vegetation was planted to remove the nickel by phytoremediation. The above-ground plant parts average 1% Ni on a dry-weight bas...
-
Godard Inc. enters into an agreement on March 1, 2013, to sell 60% of a wholly owned subsidiary, Combine Ltd., which it has owned for several years to Svelt Inc. Godards representatives on the board...
-
Smart Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wealth Corporation. Smart operates in Canada and is deemed to have a functional currency of the Canadian dollar. Wealth is a Chinese company that has a...
-
In the fall of 2012, eight wealthy businesspeople from the same ethnic background formed a committee (CKER committee) to obtain a radio license from the Canadian Radio-television and...
-
Salen Company finances some of its current operations by assigning accounts receivable to a finance company. On July 1, 2015, it assigned, under guarantee, specific accounts amounting to 150,000,000....
-
Bill Jovi is reviewing the cash accounting for Nottleman, Inc., a local mailing service. Jovis review will focus on the petty cash account and the bank reconciliation for the month ended May 31,...
-
On October 1, 2015, Arden Farm Equipment Company sold a pecan-harvesting machine to Valco Brothers Farm, Inc. In lieu of a cash payment Valco Brothers Farm gave Arden a 2-year, $120,000, 8% note (a...
Study smarter with the SolutionInn App