Questions
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 $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 $76.27 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%.

  1. 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  %

  2. How should the environmental effects be dealt with when evaluating this project?
    1. 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.
    2. The environmental effects should be ignored since the plant is legal without mitigation.
    3. The environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored.
    4. 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.
    5. The environmental effects should be treated as a remote possibility and should only be considered at the time in which they actually occur.

  3. Should this project be undertaken?
    1. Even when no mitigation is considered the project has a negative NPV, so it should not be undertaken.
    2. 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.
    3. The project should be undertaken only under the "mitigation" assumption.
    4. The project should be undertaken since the IRR is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions.
    5. The project should be undertaken since the NPV is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions.

In: Finance

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 $240.73 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 $84.66 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%. ****please use financial calculator to solve****

  1. 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   %

  2. How should the environmental effects be dealt with when evaluating this project?
    1. The environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored.
    2. 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.
    3. The environmental effects should be treated as a remote possibility and should only be considered at the time in which they actually occur.
    4. 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.
    5. The environmental effects should be ignored since the plant is legal without mitigation.

    -Select-IIIIIIIVVItem 5
  3. Should this project be undertaken?
    1. The project should be undertaken since the NPV is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions.
    2. Even when no mitigation is considered the project has a negative NPV, so it should not be undertaken.
    3. 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.
    4. The project should be undertaken only under the "mitigation" assumption.
    5. The project should be undertaken since the IRR is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions.

    -Select-IIIIIIIVVItem 6

In: Finance

CAPITAL BUDGETING CRITERIA: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS An electric utility is considering a new power plant in northern...

CAPITAL BUDGETING CRITERIA: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 $210.08 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 $76.13 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 17%.

  1. 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  %

  2. How should the environmental effects be dealt with when evaluating this project?
    1. 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.
    2. The environmental effects should be treated as a remote possibility and should only be considered at the time in which they actually occur.
    3. 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.
    4. The environmental effects should be ignored since the plant is legal without mitigation.
    5. The environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored.

    -Select- the best choice
  3. Should this project be undertaken?
    1. The project should be undertaken since the IRR is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions.
    2. The project should be undertaken since the NPV is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions.
    3. Even when no mitigation is considered the project has a negative NPV, so it should not be undertaken.
    4. 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.
    5. The project should be undertaken only under the "mitigation" assumption.

    -Select- the best choice

In: Finance

CAPITAL BUDGETING CRITERIA: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS An electric utility is considering a new power plant in northern...

CAPITAL BUDGETING CRITERIA: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 $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 $75.35 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 17%.

  1. 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 %

  2. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. The environmental effects should be ignored since the plant is legal without mitigation.
    4. The environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored.
    5. 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-IIIIIIIVV
  3. Should this project be undertaken?
    1. 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.
    2. The project should be undertaken only under the "mitigation" assumption.
    3. The project should be undertaken since the IRR is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions.
    4. The project should be undertaken since the NPV is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions.
    5. Even when no mitigation is considered the project has a negative NPV, so it should not be undertaken.

    -Select-IIIIIIIVV

In: Finance

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 $210.64 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 $76.08 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%.

  1. 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   %

  2. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. The environmental effects should be ignored since the plant is legal without mitigation.
    4. The environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored.
    5. 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-IIIIIIIVVItem 5
  3. Should this project be undertaken?
    1. 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.
    2. The project should be undertaken only under the "mitigation" assumption.
    3. The project should be undertaken since the IRR is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions.
    4. The project should be undertaken since the NPV is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions.
    5. Even when no mitigation is considered the project has a negative NPV, so it should not be undertaken.

In: Finance

Château Beaune is a family-owned winery located in the Burgundy region of France, headed by Gerard...

Château Beaune is a family-owned winery located in the Burgundy region of France, headed by Gerard Despinoy. The harvesting season in early fall is the busiest time of the year for the winery, and many part-time workers are hired to help pick and process grapes. Despinoy is investigating the purchase of a harvesting machine that would significantly reduce the amount of labour required in the picking process. The harvesting machine is built to straddle grapevines, which are laid out in low-lying rows. Two workers are carried on the machine just above ground level, one on each side of the vine. As the machine slowly crawls through the vineyard, the workers cut bunches of grapes from the vines, and the grapes fall into a hopper. The machine separates the grapes from the stems and other woody debris. The debris is then pulverized and spread behind the machine as a rich ground mulch. Despinoy has gathered the following information relating to the decision of whether to purchase the machine (the French currency is the euro, denoted by €):
a.

The winery would save €190,000 per year in labour costs with the new harvesting machine. In addition, the company would no longer have to purchase and spread ground mulch—at an annual savings of €10,000.
b.

The harvesting machine would cost €480,000. It would have an estimated 12-year useful life and zero salvage value. The winery uses straight-line depreciation.
c.

Annual out-of-pocket costs associated with the harvesting machine would be insurance, €1,000; fuel, €9,000; and a maintenance contract, €12,000. In addition, two operators would be hired and trained for the machine, and they would be paid a total of €70,000 per year, including all benefits.
d. Despinoy feels that the investment in the harvesting machine should earn at least a 16% rate of return.

  

Click here to view Exhibit 10-1 and Exhibit 10-2, to determine the appropriate discount factor(s) using tables.

   

Required:
(Ignore income taxes.)
1.

Determine the annual net savings in cash operating costs that would be realized if the harvesting machine were purchased.

       

2.

Compute the SRR expected from the harvesting machine. (Hint: This is a cost reduction project.) (Round your answer to 1 decimal place (i.e., 0.123 should be considered as 12.3%).)

     

3-a. Compute the payback period on the harvesting machine. (Round your answer to 1 decimal place.)

      

         

3-b.

Despinoy will not purchase equipment unless it has a payback period of five years or less. Under this criterion, should the harvesting machine be purchased?
Yes
No
4-a.

Compute (to the nearest whole percent) the IRR promised by the harvesting machine. (Round discount factor(s) to 3 decimal place and final answer to the nearest whole number (i.e., 0.123 should be considered as 12%).)

         

4-b.

On the basis of this computation, does it appear that the SRR is an accurate guide in investment decisions?
Yes
No

In: Accounting

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 $240.41 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 $84.88 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%.

  1. 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  %

  2. How should the environmental effects be dealt with when evaluating this project?
    1. The environmental effects should be ignored since the plant is legal without mitigation.
    2. The environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored.
    3. 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.
    4. The environmental effects should be treated as a remote possibility and should only be considered at the time in which they actually occur.
    5. 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.
  3. Should this project be undertaken?
    1. The project should be undertaken only under the "mitigation" assumption.
    2. The project should be undertaken since the IRR is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions.
    3. The project should be undertaken since the NPV is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions.
    4. Even when no mitigation is considered the project has a negative NPV, so it should not be undertaken.
    5. 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.

In: Finance

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 $270.22 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 $93.42 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%.

  1. 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:   %

  2. How should the environmental effects be dealt with when evaluating this project?
    1. The environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored.
    2. 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.
    3. The environmental effects should be treated as a remote possibility and should only be considered at the time in which they actually occur.
    4. 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.
    5. The environmental effects should be ignored since the plant is legal without mitigation.
  3. Should this project be undertaken?
    1. The project should be undertaken since the NPV is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions.
    2. Even when no mitigation is considered the project has a negative NPV, so it should not be undertaken.
    3. 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.
    4. The project should be undertaken only under the "mitigation" assumption.
    5. The project should be undertaken since the IRR is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions.

In: Finance

What direction is the magnetic field at the location of the proton at the instant shown in the picture?


image.png

A wire carries current directed out of the page. A proton travels near the wire as shown in the picture. What direction is the magnetic field at the location of the proton at the instant shown in the picture?

Zero 

Down 

To the left 

Out of the page 

Up To the right 

Into the page 


In the same scenario as the previous question, what is the direction of the magnetic force on the proton? 

Into the page 

Out of the page 

Up 

Down 

To the left 

To the right 

Zero 


image.png

A negatively charged particle is moving to the right, directly above a wire having a current flowing to the right, as shown below. In which direction is the magnetic force exerted on the particle? 

Out of page 

Into the page 

Up 

Down 

No force 


image.png

A conducting hoop is held at rest above the South pole of a bar magnet; the axis of the bar magnet lies along the axis of the circular hoop. The bar magnet is then released from rest What is the direction of the induced current in the metal hoop as the bar magnet descends? As viewed from above, the induced current in the hoop is 

Clockwise 

Counterclockwise 

No induced current

 Not sure 



image.png

The figure shows a region of uniform magnetic field directed out of the page. Outside the region, the magnetic field is zero. Rectangular loops of wire move as indicated. At the instant shown in the diagram, indicate the direction of the induced current flow (cw, ccw, or no current flow) in loop 1, 2, 3, 4 below. 

image.png

In: Physics

Landlord owns several leased buildings in the same block neardowntown. Landlord leases an entire building...

Landlord owns several leased buildings in the same block near downtown. Landlord leases an entire building to TC, for his restaurant “TC’s Café”. Among the standard terms negotiated in the lease are the following provisions:Tenant’s Duties: Tenant agrees to maintain a policy of hazard insurance sufficient to repair or replace the Property in event of damage resulting from flood, weather events, fire, or tenant use.Landlord’s Duties: Landlord agrees to keep the Property in good repair for Tenant’s use in.-Landlord hires her son-in-law Dunn to perform her maintenance duties on her leased buildings. Dunn is aware that several tin ceiling tiles need to be replaced in the restaurant, but doesn’t do it.-TC tells his restaurant manager to obtain hazard insurance, but the manager forgets to do it.-Fleming is enjoying chicken fried steak at TC’s Café when a ceiling tile falls on his head and he sustains a fracture and requires ten stitches.

a.Who can be held liable for breach of the contract duty to keep the building in good repair? Landlord ? Dunn ? Why?

b.Does Fleming have any rights to recover as a third party beneficiary of the lease agreement:

(1) For failure to maintain good repair? Why or why not?

(2) For failure to obtain hazard insurance? Why or why not?

In: Economics