Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Curatolo CBA Assignment

Curatolo CBA Assignment

Ratings: (0)|Views: 17|Likes:
Published by Marie Curatolo

More info:

Published by: Marie Curatolo on Sep 27, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/28/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Marie CuratoloMGNT01HT 2011September 20, 2011Assignment: Global EconomyThe proposed plan accomplishes the first stage of a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) by defining the project. In this case, thewelfare of the company and the welfare of the local residents affected by noise pollution and visual impact are considered. The projectis given over an eighteen-year time period.The plan also achieves the second and third stages of CBA by giving values that correspond to physical impacts of the project.Initial construction costs (€ 5,000,000), annual maintenance costs (€ 200,000), dismantlement costs (€ 400,000), all reflect labor andresource allocation. The physical impact of the output of the farm is given at 10 million kWh per year with a market value of  € 1,000,000. The social cost of the negative externalities of noise pollution and visual impact was calculated doing a contingentvaluation study which indicated a mean annual compensation cost of € 80 per household. The contingent valuation method (CVM), inthis case, attempts to make up for the absence of a market for social goods by asking them how much those affected would be willingto accept as compensation for increases in noise pollution and visual impacts. CVM is advantageous in that it can be used in a varietyof situations, it is able to empirically measure both use and non-use (existence) values, and it allows access to insight on reasoning behind valuation of a good by people. However, CVM has several disadvantages including that it measures stated preferences and notactual behavior, its results are not sensitive to the quantity of good produced or protected, and it may yield answers based on limitedinformation provided in the questionnaire. There is also an argument that public valuations are not as credible as professional ones.Still it is one of the most widely-used methods of valuing externalities.The fourth stage of discounting cost and benefit flows is achieved by converting them to present value terms to reflect thedecreasing value of money over time. The cost or benefit (X) received at time (t) is equal to X[1/(1+0.5)^t)] where 0.5 reflects thegiven 5% discount rate. See Figure 1 (in Appendix) for a list of these values.The fifth stage (the net present value test) is achieved by taking the sum of the discounted benefits and subtracting the sum of the discounted costs. For this project, the sum of the discounted benefits is € 11,274,066.25 and the sum of the discounted costs is 11,028,722.71. The difference between values is € 245,343.54. This is the net present value and it is greater than zero. Therefore, itwould be cost beneficial to accept this project at the given parameters.Sensitivity analysis was performed by increasing and decreasing parameters by +/- 25% of its original value (See Table 2).This range captures a realistic change in any parameter. When these transformed values were then used to perform CBA, they yieldednet present values. These values are presented in Figure 1 below.According to these results, the most sensitive parameter affecting net present value is the revenue (either amount of kWhgenerated or price per kWh). Therefore, small increases in these factors can have greater results and it would be most parsimonious totarget them as a benefit increasing strategy. Conversely, attention should be paid not to let these factors decrease, since smalldecreases can lower net present value significantly. Initial construction cost is also highly cost-sensitive, so measures to decrease thiscost are recommended. The least cost-sensitive parameter is the dismantlement cost, so it is suggested that this cost be of littleconcern. Based on cost-sensitivity, it is also recommended to try to increase the project lifespan and/or decrease compensation costseither by reducing the number of households affected or the amount of compensation paid per household.
 
Sensitivity Anal
Û (194,437.Û (1,004,656.Û (318,359.7Û 203,791.4Û 3,063,860.Û (656,581.7Û 1,188,012.Û 748,196.5Û 1,495,343.Û 809,046.8Û 1,147,268.Û (693,112.Û 286,895.6Û (2,573,173.-Û 3,000,000-Û 2,000,000-Û 1,000,000Û 0Û 1,000,000Û 2,000,000Û 3,000,000Û 4,000,000Discount RateInitial Construction CostMaintenance CostDismantlement CostAnnual Benefits (Revenue)*Compensation Cost**Project Lifespan
Net Present Va
25% Increas25% Decrea
 Figure 1. Graphical representation of net present value at +/-25% of original value. *Changes in annual benefits could reflect  proportional changes (increase or decrease by 25%) in either the number of kilowatt hours generated or the price per kilowatt hour.**Changes in compensation costs could reflect proportional changes in either the number of households or payment per household  per year.
 
Appendix
Year (t)DiscountFactor (1.05^t)AnnualBenefits/RevenuePresent Value of Benefits(AnnualBenefits*1.05^t)MaintenanceCostsAnnualCompensationCosts (80Euros*4000households)Present Value of TotalCosts([Maintenance +Compensationcosts]*1.05^t01 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.0010.952380952 1,000,000.00 952,380.95 200,000.00 320,000.00 495,238.1020.907029478 1,000,000.00 907,029.48 200,000.00 320,000.00 471,655.3330.863837599 1,000,000.00 863,837.60 200,000.00 320,000.00 449,195.5540.822702475 1,000,000.00 822,702.47 200,000.00 320,000.00 427,805.2950.783526166 1,000,000.00 783,526.17 200,000.00 320,000.00 407,433.6160.746215397 1,000,000.00 746,215.40 200,000.00 320,000.00 388,032.0170.71068133 1,000,000.00 710,681.33 200,000.00 320,000.00 369,554.2980.676839362 1,000,000.00 676,839.36 200,000.00 320,000.00 351,956.4790.644608916 1,000,000.00 644,608.92 200,000.00 320,000.00 335,196.64100.613913254 1,000,000.00 613,913.25 200,000.00 320,000.00 319,234.89110.584679289 1,000,000.00 584,679.29 200,000.00 320,000.00 304,033.23120.556837418 1,000,000.00 556,837.42 200,000.00 320,000.00 289,555.46130.530321351 1,000,000.00 530,321.35 200,000.00 320,000.00 275,767.10140.505067953 1,000,000.00 505,067.95 200,000.00 320,000.00 262,635.34150.481017098 1,000,000.00 481,017.10 200,000.00 320,000.00 250,128.89160.458111522 1,000,000.00 458,111.52 200,000.00 320,000.00 238,217.99170.436296688 1,000,000.00 436,296.69 200,000.00 320,000.00 226,874.28180.415520655 - - 400,000.00 - 166,208.26Total 11,274,066.25 11,028,722.71
 
Total Net PresentValue 245,343.54
Table 1. Net present value for given (original) values of parameters.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->