Transcribed Image Text
An electric utility is considering a new power plant in northernArizona. 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 tomitigate the environmental problem, but it would not be required todo so. The plant without mitigation would cost $269.63 million, andthe expected cash inflows would be $90 million per year for 5years. If the firm does invest in mitigation, the annual inflowswould be $93.42 million. Unemployment in the area where the plantwould be built is high, and the plant would provide about 350 goodjobs. The risk adjusted WACC is 18%. Calculate the NPV and IRR withmitigation. Round your answers to two decimal places. Enter youranswer for NPV in millions. Do not round your intermediatecalculations. For example, an answer of $10,550,000 should beentered as 10.55. Negative value should be indicated by a minussign. NPV $ million IRR % Calculate the NPV and IRR withoutmitigation. Round your answers to two decimal places. Enter youranswer for NPV in millions. Do not round your intermediatecalculations. For example, an answer of $10,550,000 should beentered as 10.55. NPV $ million IRR % How should the environmentaleffects be dealt with when evaluating this project? If the utilitymitigates for the environmental effects, the project is notacceptable. However, before the company chooses to do the projectwithout mitigation, it needs to make sure that any costs of "illwill" for not mitigating for the environmental effects have beenconsidered in the original analysis. The environmental effectsshould be treated as a remote possibility and should only beconsidered at the time in which they actually occur. Theenvironmental effects if not mitigated would result in additionalcash flows. Therefore, since the plant is legal without mitigation,there are no benefits to performing a "no mitigation" analysis. Theenvironmental effects should be ignored since the plant is legalwithout mitigation. The environmental effects should be treated asa sunk cost and therefore ignored. Should this project beundertaken? The project should be undertaken since the IRR ispositive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation"assumptions. The project should be undertaken since the NPV ispositive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation"assumptions. Even when no mitigation is considered the project hasa negative NPV, so it should not be undertaken. The project shouldbe undertaken only if they do not mitigate for the environmentaleffects. However, they want to make sure that they've done theanalysis properly due to any "ill will" and additional "costs" thatmight result from undertaking the project without concern for theenvironmental impacts. The project should be undertaken only underthe "mitigation" assumption.