8/4/2019 Curatolo CBA Assignment

1/4

Marie Curatolo MGNT01HT 2011September 20, 2011 Assignment: Global Economy

The 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 project

is 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 contingent

valuation 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 willing

to accept as compensation for increases in noise pollution and visual impacts. CVM is advantageous in that it can be used in a variety

of situations, it is able to empirically measure both use and non-use (existence) values, and it allows access to insight on reasoningbehind valuation of a good by people. However, CVM has several disadvantages including that it measures stated preferences and not

actual 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 the

given 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, it

would 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 yielded

net 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 kWh

generated or price per kWh). Therefore, small increases in these factors can have greater results and it would be most parsimonious to

target 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 this

cost 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 costs

either by reducing the number of households affected or the amount of compensation paid per household.

8/4/2019 Curatolo CBA Assignment

2/4

Sensit ivity An al

(194,437.

(1,004,656.

(318,359.7

203,791.4

3,063,860.

(656,581.7

1,188,012.

748,196.5

1,495,343.

809,046.8

1,147,268.

(693,112.

286,895.6 (2,573,173.

- 3 , 00 0,0 00- 2 , 00 0,0 00- 1 ,0 00 ,0 00 0 1 ,0 00 ,0 00 2 ,0 00 ,0 00 3 ,0 00 ,0 00 4 ,0 00 ,0 00

Discount Rate

Init ia l Construction Co st

Maintenance C ost

D ismant lement Cost

Annual Benefits (Revenue)*

Com pensat ion Cost**

Project L i fespan

Net Present Va

25% Increas

25% Decrea

Figure 1. Graphical representation of net present value at +/-25% of original value. *Changes in annual benefits could reflectproportional 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.

8/4/2019 Curatolo CBA Assignment

3/4

Appendix

Year (t)Discount

Factor (1.05^t)

Annual

Benefits/Revenue

Present Value of

Benefits

(AnnualBenefits*1.05^t)

Maintenance

Costs

AnnualCompensation

Costs (80

Euros*4000households)

Present Value of TotalCosts

([Maintenance +

Compensationcosts]*1.05^t

0 1 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00

1 0.952380952 1,000,000.00 952,380.95 200,000.00 320,000.00 495,238.10

2 0.907029478 1,000,000.00 907,029.48 200,000.00 320,000.00 471,655.333 0.863837599 1,000,000.00 863,837.60 200,000.00 320,000.00 449,195.55

4 0.822702475 1,000,000.00 822,702.47 200,000.00 320,000.00 427,805.295 0.783526166 1,000,000.00 783,526.17 200,000.00 320,000.00 407,433.61

6 0.746215397 1,000,000.00 746,215.40 200,000.00 320,000.00 388,032.017 0.71068133 1,000,000.00 710,681.33 200,000.00 320,000.00 369,554.29

8 0.676839362 1,000,000.00 676,839.36 200,000.00 320,000.00 351,956.479 0.644608916 1,000,000.00 644,608.92 200,000.00 320,000.00 335,196.6410 0.613913254 1,000,000.00 613,913.25 200,000.00 320,000.00 319,234.89

11 0.584679289 1,000,000.00 584,679.29 200,000.00 320,000.00 304,033.2312 0.556837418 1,000,000.00 556,837.42 200,000.00 320,000.00 289,555.46

13 0.530321351 1,000,000.00 530,321.35 200,000.00 320,000.00 275,767.10

14 0.505067953 1,000,000.00 505,067.95 200,000.00 320,000.00 262,635.3415 0.481017098 1,000,000.00 481,017.10 200,000.00 320,000.00 250,128.89

16 0.458111522 1,000,000.00 458,111.52 200,000.00 320,000.00 238,217.9917 0.436296688 1,000,000.00 436,296.69 200,000.00 320,000.00 226,874.28

18 0.415520655 - - 400,000.00 - 166,208.26Total 11,274,066.25 11,028,722.71

Total Net Present

Value 245,343.54

Table 1. Net present value for given (original) values of parameters.

8/4/2019 Curatolo CBA Assignment

4/4

Parameter Original Value (I)

Hypothetical Change to Value

(I +/- .25*I)Effect on Net Present Value

25% Increase 25% Decrease 25 % Increase 25% Decrease

Discount Rate 5% 6.25% 3.75% (194,437.48) 748,196.53Initial Construction Cost 5,000,000.00 6,250,000.00 3,750,000.00 (1,004,656.46) 1,495,343.54

Maintenance Cost 200,000.00 250,000.00 150,000.00 (318,359.78) 809,046.85

Dismantlement Cost 400,000.00 500,000.00 300,000.00 203,791.47 286,895.60Annual Benefits (Revenue)* 1,000,000.00 1,250,000.00 750,000.00 3,063,860.10 (2,573,173.02)

Compensation Cost** 320,000.00 400,000.00 240,000.00 (656,581.76) 1,147,268.84

Project Lifespan 18 Years 23 Years 14 Years 1,188,012.72 (693,112.15)Table 2. Effects of changing parameters on net present 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. Colors correspond to representation inFigure 1.