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 require an initial outlay of $240.20 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 $84.06 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 19%. 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: $ IRR: % million 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: $ IRR: % million b. How should the environmental effects be dealt with when evaluating this project? 1. The environmental effects should be treated as a remote possibility and should only be considered at the time in which they actually occur. II. 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. III. The environmental effects should be ignored since the plant is legal without mitigation. IV. The environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored. V. 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. -Select- ▼ c. Should this project be undertaken? 1. The project should be undertaken only if they do not mitigate for the environmental effects. However, they have to make sure that they've done the analysis properly to avoid any "ill will" and additional "costs" that might result from undertaking the project without concern for the environmental impacts. II. The project should be undertaken only under the "mitigation" assumption. III. The project should be undertaken since the IRR is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions. IV. The project should be undertaken since the NPV is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions. V. Even when no mitigation is considered the project has a negative NPV, so it should not be undertaken. -Select- ✔

A firm that manufactures paper is considering a project to set up a logging operation.  Wood pulp generated by the project - normally an unwanted by-product of a logging operation - is an input to the paper manufacturing process.  This will save the company $340,000 in wood pulp purchases, but it will cost $50,000 more to transport the wood pulp to the paper factory than it would cost to dump it as waste. How would you describe this situation in terms of the NPV analysis for the logging operation? Question 2Answer a. There is a positive externality equal to $290,000 which should be included in the NPV analysis. b. There is a positive externality equal to $340,000 which should be included in the NPV analysis. c. There is a negative externality equal to $290,000 which should be included in the NPV analysis. d. There is a negative externality equal to $340,000 which should be included in the NPV analysis.

The city of Columbia is considering extending the runways of its municipal airport so that commercial jets can use the facility. The land necessary for the runway extension is currently a farmland that can be purchased for $350,000. Construction costs for the runway extension are projected to be $600,000, and the additional annual maintenance costs for the extension are estimated to be $22,500. If the runways are extended, a small terminal will be constructed at a cost of $250,000. The annual operating and maintenance costs for the terminal are estimated at $75,000. Finally, the projected increase in flights will require the addition of two air traffic controllers at an annual cost of $100,000. Annual benefits of the runway extension have been estimated as follows (shown): Apply the B–C ratio method with a study period of 20 years and a MARR of 10% per year to determine whether the runways at Columbia Municipal Airport should be extended.

Use the following information for the next four questions: The Anti-Zombie Corporation is considering expanding one of its production facilities to research a new type of virus, which will hopefully not cause a future zombie outbreak. The project would require a $24,000,000 capital investment and will be depreciated (straight-line to zero) over its 3 year life. They know that they will be able to salvage $6,000,000 for the equipment at that time. Incremental sales are expected to be $16,000,000 annually for the 3 year period with costs (excluding depreciation) of 40% of sales. The company would also have to commit initial working capital to the project of $2,000,000. The company has a 30% tax rate, and requires a 15% rate of return for projects of this risk level.

The investor-developer would not be comfortable with a 7.8 percent return on cost because the margin for error is too risky. If construction costs are higher or rents are lower than anticipated, the project may not be feasible. The asking price of the project is $12,700,000 and the construction cost per unit is $82,200. The current rent to justify the land acqusition is $2.2 per square foot. The weighted average is 900 square feet per unit. Average vacancy and Operating expenses are 5% and 35% of Gross Revenue respectively. Use the following data to rework the calculations in Concept Box 16.2 in order to assess the feasibility of the project:   Required: a. Based on the fact that the project appears to have 9,360 square feet of surface area in excess of zoning requirements, the developer could make an argument to the planning department for an additional 10 units, 250 units in total, or 25 units per acre. What is the percentage return on total cost under the revised proposal? Is the…

Please see image for question.

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 alr 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 require an initial outlay of $210.55 million, and the expected cash Inflows would be $70 million per year for 5 years. If the firm does Invest in mitigation, the annual inflows would be $75.20 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 19%. 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…