Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Business
Finance
b. How should the environmental effects be dealt with when evaluating this project? I. The environmental effects should be ignored since the plant is legal without mitigation. II. The environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored. III. If the utility mitigates for the environmental effects, the project is not acceptable. However, before the company chooses to do the project without mitigation, it needs to make sure that any costs of "ill will" for not mitigating for the environmental effects have been considered in the original analysis. IV. The environmental effects should be treated as a remote possibility and should only be considered at the time in which they actually occur. V. The environmental effects if not mitigated would result in additional cash flows. Therefore, since the plant is legal without mitigation, there are no benefits to performing a "no mitigation" analysis. -Select- v c. Should this project be undertaken? I. The project should be undertaken only under the "mitigation" assumption. II. The project should be undertaken since the IRR is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions. III. The project should be undertaken since the NPV is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions. IV. Even when no mitigation is considered the project has a negative NPV, so it should not be undertaken. V. The project should be undertaken only if they do not mitigate for the environmental effects. However, they want to make sure that they've done the analysis properly due to any "ill will" and additional "costs" that might result from undertaking the project without concern for the environmental impacts. -Select- v

b. How should the environmental effects be dealt with when evaluating this project? I. The environmental effects should be ignored since the plant is legal without mitigation. II. The environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored. III. If the utility mitigates for the environmental effects, the project is not acceptable. However, before the company chooses to do the project without mitigation, it needs to make sure that any costs of "ill will" for not mitigating for the environmental effects have been considered in the original analysis. IV. The environmental effects should be treated as a remote possibility and should only be considered at the time in which they actually occur. V. The environmental effects if not mitigated would result in additional cash flows. Therefore, since the plant is legal without mitigation, there are no benefits to performing a "no mitigation" analysis. -Select- v c. Should this project be undertaken? I. The project should be undertaken only under the "mitigation" assumption. II. The project should be undertaken since the IRR is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions. III. The project should be undertaken since the NPV is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions. IV. Even when no mitigation is considered the project has a negative NPV, so it should not be undertaken. V. The project should be undertaken only if they do not mitigate for the environmental effects. However, they want to make sure that they've done the analysis properly due to any "ill will" and additional "costs" that might result from undertaking the project without concern for the environmental impacts. -Select- v

Essentials Of Investments
Essentials Of Investments
11th Edition
ISBN:9781260013924
Author:Bodie, Zvi, Kane, Alex, MARCUS, Alan J.
Publisher:Bodie, Zvi, Kane, Alex, MARCUS, Alan J.
Chapter1: Investments: Background And Issues
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 1PS
See similar textbooks
icon
Related questions
Question
100%

Please answer Parts B and C

An electric utility is considering a new power plant in northern Arizona. Power from the plant would be sold in the Phoenix area, where it is badly needed. Because the firm has received a permit, the plant would be legal; but it would cause some air pollution. The company could spend an additional $40 million at Year 0 to mitigate the environmental problem, but it would not be required to do so. The plant without mitigation would cost $239.67 million, and the expected cash inflows would be $80 million per year for 5 years. If the firm does invest in mitigation, the annual inflows would be $84.62 million. Unemployment in the area where the plant would be built is high, and the plant would provide about 350 good jobs. The risk adjusted WACC is 16%. a. Calculate the NPV and IRR with mitigation. Enter your answer for NPV in millions. For example, an answer of $10,550,000 should be entered as 10.55. Negative values, if any, should be indicated by a minus sign. Do not round intermediate calculations. Round your answers to two decimal places. NPV: $ million IRR: % Calculate the NPV and IRR without mitigation. Enter your answer for NPV in millions. For example, an answer of $10,550,000 should be entered as 10.55. Negative values, if any, should be indicated by a minus sign. Do not round intermediate calculations. Round your answers to two decimal places. NPV: $ million IRR: % b. How should the environmental effects be dealt with when evaluating this project? I. The environmental effects should be ignored since the plant is legal without mitigation. II. The environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored. III. If the utility mitigates for the environmental effects, the project is not acceptable. However, before the company chooses to do the project without mitigation, it needs to make sure that any costs of "ill will" for not mitigating for the environmental effects have been considered in the original analysis. IV. The environmental effects should be treated as a remote possibility and should only be considered at the time in which they actually occur. V. The environmental effects if not mitigated would result in additional cash flows. Therefore, since the plant is legal without mitigation, there are no benefits to performing a "no mitigation" analysis. -Select- c. Should this project be undertaken? I. The project should be undertaken only under the "mitigation" assumption. II. The project should be undertaken since the IRR is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions. III. The project should be undertaken since the NPV is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions. IV. Even when no mitigation is considered the project has a negative NPV, so it should not be undertaken. V. The project should be undertaken only if they do not mitigate for the environmental effects. However, they want to make sure that they've done the analysis properly due to any "ill will" and additional "costs" that might result from undertaking the project without concern for the environmental impacts. -Select-
Transcribed Image Text:An electric utility is considering a new power plant in northern Arizona. Power from the plant would be sold in the Phoenix area, where it is badly needed. Because the firm has received a permit, the plant would be legal; but it would cause some air pollution. The company could spend an additional $40 million at Year 0 to mitigate the environmental problem, but it would not be required to do so. The plant without mitigation would cost $239.67 million, and the expected cash inflows would be $80 million per year for 5 years. If the firm does invest in mitigation, the annual inflows would be $84.62 million. Unemployment in the area where the plant would be built is high, and the plant would provide about 350 good jobs. The risk adjusted WACC is 16%. a. Calculate the NPV and IRR with mitigation. Enter your answer for NPV in millions. For example, an answer of $10,550,000 should be entered as 10.55. Negative values, if any, should be indicated by a minus sign. Do not round intermediate calculations. Round your answers to two decimal places. NPV: $ million IRR: % Calculate the NPV and IRR without mitigation. Enter your answer for NPV in millions. For example, an answer of $10,550,000 should be entered as 10.55. Negative values, if any, should be indicated by a minus sign. Do not round intermediate calculations. Round your answers to two decimal places. NPV: $ million IRR: % b. How should the environmental effects be dealt with when evaluating this project? I. The environmental effects should be ignored since the plant is legal without mitigation. II. The environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored. III. If the utility mitigates for the environmental effects, the project is not acceptable. However, before the company chooses to do the project without mitigation, it needs to make sure that any costs of "ill will" for not mitigating for the environmental effects have been considered in the original analysis. IV. The environmental effects should be treated as a remote possibility and should only be considered at the time in which they actually occur. V. The environmental effects if not mitigated would result in additional cash flows. Therefore, since the plant is legal without mitigation, there are no benefits to performing a "no mitigation" analysis. -Select- c. Should this project be undertaken? I. The project should be undertaken only under the "mitigation" assumption. II. The project should be undertaken since the IRR is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions. III. The project should be undertaken since the NPV is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions. IV. Even when no mitigation is considered the project has a negative NPV, so it should not be undertaken. V. The project should be undertaken only if they do not mitigate for the environmental effects. However, they want to make sure that they've done the analysis properly due to any "ill will" and additional "costs" that might result from undertaking the project without concern for the environmental impacts. -Select-
Expert Solution
trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 2 steps with 2 images

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer
Knowledge Booster
Basic Accounting Terms
Learn more about
Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, finance and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.
Recommended textbooks for you
Essentials Of Investments
Essentials Of Investments
Finance
ISBN:
9781260013924
Author:
Bodie, Zvi, Kane, Alex, MARCUS, Alan J.
Publisher:
Mcgraw-hill Education,
FUNDAMENTALS OF CORPORATE FINANCE
FUNDAMENTALS OF CORPORATE FINANCE
Finance
ISBN:
9781260013962
Author:
BREALEY
Publisher:
RENT MCG
Financial Management: Theory & Practice
Financial Management: Theory & Practice
Finance
ISBN:
9781337909730
Author:
Brigham
Publisher:
Cengage
Foundations Of Finance
Foundations Of Finance
Finance
ISBN:
9780134897264
Author:
KEOWN, Arthur J., Martin, John D., PETTY, J. William
Publisher:
Pearson,
Fundamentals of Financial Management (MindTap Cou…
Fundamentals of Financial Management (MindTap Cou…
Finance
ISBN:
9781337395250
Author:
Eugene F. Brigham, Joel F. Houston
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Corporate Finance (The Mcgraw-hill/Irwin Series i…
Corporate Finance (The Mcgraw-hill/Irwin Series i…
Finance
ISBN:
9780077861759
Author:
Stephen A. Ross Franco Modigliani Professor of Financial Economics Professor, Randolph W Westerfield Robert R. Dockson Deans Chair in Bus. Admin., Jeffrey Jaffe, Bradford D Jordan Professor
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS