e Phoenix area, where it is Dadly needed. because the nirm nas received a permit, the piant Would DE ut it would cause some air pollution. The company could spend an additional $40 million at Year 0 to he environmental problem, but it would not be required to do so. The plant without mitigation would nitial outlay of $240.41 million, and the expected cash inflows would be $80 million per year for 5 yea rm does invest in mitigation, the annual inflows would be $84.33 million. Unemployment in the area lant would be built is high, and the plant would provide about 350 good jobs. The risk adjusted WACC . Calculate the NPV and IRR with mitigation. Enter your answer for NPV in millions. For example, an $10,550,000 should be entered as 10.55. Negative values, if any, should be indicated by a minus s 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, of $10,550,000 should be entered as 10.55. Negative values, if any, should be indicated by a minu 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 if not mitigated would result in additional cash flows. Therefore, sinc- 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, be company chooses to do the project without mitigation, it needs to make sure that any costs of 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 conside time in which they actually occur. e Phoenix area, where it is Dadly needed. because the nirm nas received a permit, the piant Would DE ut it would cause some air pollution. The company could spend an additional $40 million at Year 0 to he environmental problem, but it would not be required to do so. The plant without mitigation would nitial outlay of $240.41 million, and the expected cash inflows would be $80 million per year for 5 yea rm does invest in mitigation, the annual inflows would be $84.33 million. Unemployment in the area lant would be built is high, and the plant would provide about 350 good jobs. The risk adjusted WACC . Calculate the NPV and IRR with mitigation. Enter your answer for NPV in millions. For example, an $10,550,000 should be entered as 10.55. Negative values, if any, should be indicated by a minus s 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, of $10,550,000 should be entered as 10.55. Negative values, if any, should be indicated by a minu 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 if not mitigated would result in additional cash flows. Therefore, sinc- 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, be company chooses to do the project without mitigation, it needs to make sure that any costs of 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 conside time in which they actually occur