Question

# An electric utility is considering a new power plant in northern Arizona. Power from the plant...

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 \$269.75 million, and the expected cash inflows would be \$90 million per year for 5 years. If the firm does invest in mitigation, the annual inflows would be \$93.98 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%.

Calculate the NPV and IRR with mitigation. Round your answers to two decimal places. Enter your answer for NPV in millions. Do not round your intermediate calculations. For example, an answer of \$10,550,000 should be entered as 10.55. Negative value should be indicated by a minus sign.
NPV \$   million
IRR   %

Calculate the NPV and IRR without mitigation. Round your answers to two decimal places. Enter your answer for NPV in millions. Do not round your intermediate calculations. For example, an answer of \$10,550,000 should be entered as 10.55.
NPV \$   million
IRR   %

How should the environmental effects be dealt with when evaluating this project?

I.)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.

II.)The environmental effects should be ignored since the plant is legal without mitigation.

III.)The environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored.

IV.)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.

V.)The environmental effects should be treated as a remote possibility and should only be considered at the time in which they actually occur.

Should this project be undertaken?

I.)Even when no mitigation is considered the project has a negative NPV, so it should not be undertaken.

II.)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.

III.)The project should be undertaken only under the "mitigation" assumption.

IV.)The project should be undertaken since the IRR is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions.

V.)The project should be undertaken since the NPV is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions.

For non mitigatiion case:

Initial cash flows = -269.75 mn \$ and other inflows are also known which are \$ 90 mn. WACC = 16%.

So we get the PV of future cash flows by discounting = 298.68643 mn \$ - 269.75 which gives NPV = \$ 24.94 mn

and hence the IRR = 19.90%.

I think option (IV) should be correct as any of the environmental effects hampering plants utility in future or any of the impacts of ill will on environment should be considered in original analysis.

Clealry option (II) is correct as NPV is positive for no mitigation case only and also this supports the point (IV) of the above question that we chose.

#### Earn Coins

Coins can be redeemed for fabulous gifts.