Florida Power and Light (FPL) is regarded as being one of the business organizations that are legally authorized to generate, supply, and sell electricity to thousands of Miamians. This company was incorporated in the late 1925 and then managed to replace the Miami Beach Electric Company by the year 1926. In the late 1926, the power lines were by hurricanes in the year 1926, but FPL managed to repair them as well as building other new generating plant hence increasing its customer base. As a result of that, the company was made an independent public corporation by the American Power and Light (United States Federal Aviation Administration. (2008).
Nevertheless, being a regulated utility company, it has been realized that the company have not yet had the potential of utilizing the ratepayers’ funded assets for the purpose of improving the services they offer to them. The reason for that is because such services are the ones that have the possibility of lowering prices, sustaining them as well as recovering efforts in storms (Lynne, 2008). Ideally, the decisions that the company formulates are entirely aimed at maintaining their monopoly, compensates lobbyists, limit competition, and exert extensive political influences which will in return maximize corporate profits. For instance, the company has been widely accused of collaborating with political organizations and state politicians to aid it reject laws that could have made it easier for business owners and other community members to adopt rooftop solar. The idea behind this is to maintain its monopolistic powers (Plant, 2000).
Conversely, in order to be in the position of expanding the profit margin, the company have moved its operating activities into energy services through buying private contractor as well as engaging in providing other services such as electrical, heating, air conditioning, and plumbing to commercial and residential property owners. Despite that, the managed authority of this company have also considered utilizing ratepayers’ assets and funds from its regulated utility for the purpose of establishing new and better electricity generating strategies. Consequently, by using leveraging the company’s resources as well as other predatory pricing mechanisms, the idea entails decimating other contractors and small business owners who have had the potential of offering those services locally (Oyola & Florida International University, 2000). In the process of forcing them out of their industry, it implies that the company will continue holding a monopoly position, escalating prices, as well as destroying the prevailing competition.
On the other hand, the company has managed to come up with various decisions that some have been noted to be frustrating its potential customers. For instance, it management authority decided to hike its rates for no good reason, degrading the environment as well as actively tricking voters to the extent of backing false anti-solar amendment (Shimon & Alistair, 2012). Despite that, is believed that such a scenario will come to an end because the main objective of the majority of the scorned clients is to ensure that such a utility company has really annoyed them. The reason for that is because in case the company will be permitted to continue using their assets, power, and other regulated monopoly status to unlawfully and unfairly control new industries, it means that other utilities be forced to follow their bogus competition, decimating jobs, and consumer choices (Plant, 2000).
Economic research indicates that having access to each individual household with potential customer information will necessitate understanding the equipment that they use how to repair or replace them, and so on. Such information is what the FPL Company has been using for the purpose of marketing the products and/or services they offer aggressively (Lynne, 2008). Therefore, as one of the standardized, ratepayers’ funded utility, the company has managed to have direct access to day-to-day customer information. In return, its management authority is using the same data for the purpose of emailing and marketing their customers. Additionally, this has improved the capacity of the company in utilizing its utility billing systems for the purpose of aggressively marketing new services to potential residents who requires them (Plant, 2000).
As a result of that, it is evident that the company ultimately understands the equipment and services the targeted potential customers uses which in return enables it to design its marketing strategies that discourages competition. This implies that such a fear based marketing strategies are undesirable because they end up wasting ratepayers’ resources for the purpose of obtaining new customers (Shimon & Alistair, 2012). Ideally, such an objective the company uses will ultimately exchange the prevailing utility bills. On the same note, it means that the sequential cut-pricing is one thing, but with the extensive FPL monopoly infrastructure, it is important to break them into monthly billing (Lynne, 2008). This is because it has been realized that local contractors do not have the ability of coming up with the same strategy. The main reason is that they do not have the ability of controlling such a monopoly have the potential of resourcing customer information as well as generating multiple customer monthly invoices from their customer care centers. Despite that, it is evident that a large percentage of the FPL resources are mainly used for the purpose of subsidizing payment and benefits (Oyola & Florida International University, 2000).
References
Lynne, L. K. (2008). Deregulation, Innovation and Market Liberalization: Electricity Regulation in a Continually Evolving Environment: Routledge Studies in Business Organizations and Networks. Routledge Press
Oyola-Yemaiel, A., & Florida International University. (2000). Towards the formation of a sustainable South Florida: An analysis of conflict resolution and consensus building in the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative. U.S: Dissertation.com.
Plant, R. T. (2000). Ecommerce: Formulation of strategy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Shimon, A & Alistair, P. (2012). The Virtual Utility: Accounting, Technology & Competitive Aspects of the Emerging Industry: Volume 26 of Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy. Springer Science & Business Media
United States. Federal Aviation Administration. (2008). Fort Lauderdale Hollywood: Environmental Impact Statement, United States. Federal Aviation Administration. Northwestern University Press
