Problem Definition
ChargeNet Capital is a €3 billion infrastructure investment fund that specializes in energy transition assets across Europe. The fund's investment committee is evaluating a proposal to deploy €500 million to build and operate a network of DC fast-charging stations for electric vehicles along major highway corridors in Western Europe. The network would comprise 400 stations with 2,000 charging points, targeting the highest-traffic routes connecting major cities.
The EV market in Europe is at an inflection point. EV penetration reached 22% of new car sales in 2025, and the installed EV fleet across Western Europe now stands at 12 million vehicles, growing at approximately 25% per year. Governments across the region have announced combustion engine bans effective between 2030 and 2035, creating regulatory tailwinds. However, the charging infrastructure market presents a mixed picture: many existing networks are struggling with utilization rates averaging just 22%, and several operators have reported negative cash flows. Critics argue that the market is caught in a chicken-and-egg problem --- drivers avoid EVs because of charging anxiety, while investors hesitate because low utilization destroys economics.
ChargeNet Capital's thesis is that highway corridor charging is fundamentally different from urban charging. Highway stations see structurally higher utilization (35% average vs. 18% for urban locations) because drivers have no alternative to stopping on long journeys. The fund believes that by concentrating investment on the highest-traffic corridors and pairing charging with ancillary retail, it can achieve breakeven utilization while the broader market catches up. The fund has engaged your team to determine: (a) Is this an attractive investment? (b) Which countries and corridors should be prioritized? (c) What business model will maximize returns?
Additional InformationAsk for more dataHide data
If asked, please share that:
- The fund targets a minimum 15% IRR on infrastructure investments, with a 10-year hold period
- Each station will have 5 DC fast chargers rated at 150 kW each
- Installed cost per charger is €150,000 (includes equipment, installation, and commissioning)
- Station infrastructure cost is €200,000 per station (grid connection, canopy, lighting, payment terminal)
- Remaining capital covers land leases, permitting, software platform, corporate overhead, and contingency
- The fund has secured indicative grid connection agreements with national grid operators in 6 countries
- Two major competitors --- Ionity (backed by automakers) and Tesla Supercharger (opening to non-Tesla) --- are also expanding aggressively
Exhibit 2Utilization Rates by Location Type
| Location Type | Avg. Utilization (%) | Peak Utilization (%) | Avg. Sessions per Charger per Day | Revenue per Charger per Day (€) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major highway corridor (>50K ADT) | 38 | 68 | 22 | 347 |
| Secondary highway (20--50K ADT) | 28 | 48 | 16 | 252 |
| Suburban commercial hub | 18 | 38 | 10 | 158 |
| Urban fast-charge station | 15 | 42 | 9 | 142 |
| Rural / regional connector | 10 | 22 | 6 | 95 |
| Industry average | 22 | 42 | 13 | 205 |
ADT = Average Daily Traffic. Revenue assumes €0.45/kWh, 35 kWh per session. Sessions rounded to nearest whole number.
Source: ChargeNet case file
Question 1Structuring
How would you evaluate whether this is an attractive investment for ChargeNet Capital?
Hint · Structuring
Build 3–4 branches that are specific to this client and question, not a generic framework. Check they don't overlap and together cover the problem.
Additional InformationAsk for more dataHide data
- Wholesale electricity cost averages €0.12/kWh across target markets
- Charging price at point of sale ranges from €0.45 to €0.55/kWh depending on market
- Current industry-average utilization is 22%; highway corridors average 35%
- Ancillary revenue (convenience store margin, digital advertising, co-branding) estimated at €2--4 per charging session
- Average charging session consumes 35 kWh and lasts 25 minutes
Try it first, then checkShow model answerHide model answer
A rigorous framework for evaluating this investment should cover five dimensions:
1. Market Fundamentals
- a) Current EV fleet size and growth trajectory across target markets
- b) Regulatory environment (combustion engine bans, charging mandates, subsidies)
- c) Demand-supply gap in charging infrastructure (underserved corridors = opportunity)
2. Unit Economics
- a) Per-station investment cost (chargers + infrastructure + soft costs)
- b) Revenue per station (function of utilization, price per kWh, ancillary revenue)
- c) Operating costs (electricity procurement, maintenance, site lease, payment processing)
- d) Breakeven utilization rate and sensitivity to key variables
3. Portfolio-Level Returns
- a) Blended utilization across 400 stations (highway vs. secondary corridors)
- b) Ramp-up trajectory --- how quickly do new stations reach target utilization?
- c) IRR and payback period against the fund's 15% hurdle rate
- d) Terminal value considerations (asset sale, refinancing, strategic acquisition)
4. Competitive Dynamics
- a) Ionity's expansion plans and automaker backing (cost of capital advantage?)
- b) Tesla Supercharger network opening to third parties (threat or validation?)
- c) Barriers to entry: grid connection lead times, permitting, site acquisition
- d) Risk of overbuild in popular corridors
5. Risk and Mitigation
- a) Utilization risk: what if EV adoption slows or home charging improves?
- b) Technology risk: will 150 kW chargers become obsolete (350 kW+ already emerging)?
- c) Pricing risk: regulatory caps on charging prices in some markets
- d) Electricity cost risk: wholesale price volatility
- e) Mitigation strategies: phased rollout, demand guarantees from fleet operators, government subsidies
What the interviewer is looking forShow guidanceHide guidance
This is a candidate-led case. Allow the candidate to propose their own structure before sharing data. A strong candidate will recognize that this is fundamentally a unit economics and market timing question, not a generic market entry case. Push back if the candidate defaults to a standard profitability framework without considering infrastructure-specific factors like utilization sensitivity, regulatory risk, and network effects.
- Good candidates organize their analysis around market attractiveness, unit economics, competitive positioning, and risks
- Strong candidates identify utilization rate as the single most critical variable and structure their analysis to stress-test it
- Excellent candidates additionally recognize the option value embedded in the investment --- the network becomes more valuable as EV adoption accelerates --- and frame the analysis around both current economics and a dynamic growth trajectory
Question 2Numeracy
Using the data provided, calculate the annual cash flow and approximate 10-year IRR for a single highway station operating at 30% utilization. Assume a charging price of €0.45/kWh and ancillary revenue of €3 per session.
Hint · Numeracy
Write the formula before you plug in numbers, keep units and zeros explicit, and sanity-check the order of magnitude at the end.
Additional InformationAsk for more dataHide data
Share the following if not already provided:
- 5 chargers per station, each 150 kW
- Utilization = percentage of time each charger is occupied by a vehicle
- Average session: 35 kWh consumed, 25 minutes duration
- Wholesale electricity cost: €0.12/kWh
- Annual operating costs per station: approximately €120,000 (site lease, maintenance, payment processing, network platform, insurance)
- Refer to Exhibit 3 only after the candidate has attempted their own calculation
Exhibit 3Unit Economics per Station at Different Utilization Levels
| Metric | 15% Util. | 20% Util. | 25% Util. | 30% Util. | 40% Util. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Annual sessions | 15,800 | 21,000 | 26,300 | 31,400 | 42,000 |
| Charging revenue (€K) | 249 | 331 | 414 | 495 | 662 |
| Ancillary revenue (€K) | 47 | 63 | 79 | 94 | 126 |
| Total revenue (€K) | 296 | 394 | 493 | 589 | 788 |
| Electricity cost (€K) | 66 | 88 | 110 | 132 | 176 |
| Operating costs (€K) | 105 | 112 | 116 | 120 | 130 |
| Annual cash flow (€K) | 125 | 194 | 267 | 337 | 482 |
| Simple payback (years) | 10.0 | 6.4 | 4.7 | 3.7 | 2.6 |
| 10-year IRR | 0% | 9% | 17% | 23% | 36% |
All-in investment per station: €1.25M. Operating costs include site lease, maintenance, payment processing, network platform, and insurance. Charging price: €0.45/kWh. Ancillary revenue: €3/session.
Source: ChargeNet case file
Try it first, then checkShow model answerHide model answer
Step 1: Per-station investment
- Total investment: €500M for 400 stations
- All-in cost per station: €500M / 400 = €1.25M
- Cross-check: 5 chargers x €150K = €750K hardware + €200K infrastructure = €950K direct costs + €300K soft costs (land, permits, software, contingency) = €1.25M
Step 2: Daily sessions per station
- Each charger is occupied 30% of 24 hours = 7.2 hours per day
- Each session lasts 25 minutes = 0.417 hours
- Sessions per charger per day: 7.2 / 0.417 = 17.3
- Sessions per station per day: 17.3 x 5 chargers = 86.4, approximately 86
Step 3: Annual revenue
- Annual sessions: 86 x 365 = 31,390, approximately 31,400
- Charging revenue: 31,400 x 35 kWh x €0.45/kWh = 31,400 x €15.75 = €494,550, approximately €495K
- Ancillary revenue: 31,400 x €3 = €94,200, approximately €94K
- Total annual revenue: approximately €589K, round to €590K
Step 4: Annual costs
- Electricity: 31,400 sessions x 35 kWh x €0.12/kWh = 31,400 x €4.20 = €131,880, approximately €132K
- Operating costs (given): €120K
- Total annual costs: approximately €252K
Step 5: Annual net cash flow
- €590K - €252K = €338K, approximately €340K
Step 6: Payback and IRR
- Simple payback: €1,250K / €340K = 3.7 years
- For the 10-year IRR, recognize this is an annuity: find rate r where €1,250K = €340K x annuity factor
- Required annuity factor: 1,250 / 340 = 3.68
- Test r = 23%: annuity factor = (1 - 1.23^-10) / 0.23 = (1 - 0.127) / 0.23 = 3.80 --- NPV slightly positive
- Test r = 25%: annuity factor = (1 - 1.25^-10) / 0.25 = (1 - 0.107) / 0.25 = 3.57 --- NPV slightly negative
- IRR is approximately 23--24%, which comfortably exceeds the fund's 15% hurdle rate
Key insight: At 30% utilization, a highway station generates a 23--24% IRR with a 3.7-year payback. However, the fund should stress-test at 20--25% utilization to understand downside risk (see Exhibit 3).
What the interviewer is looking forShow guidanceHide guidance
This question tests whether the candidate can build a revenue model from first principles. A common mistake is confusing utilization rate (% of time occupied) with throughput or making errors converting minutes to hours. Let the candidate work through the math step by step. If they get stuck on the IRR calculation, prompt them to estimate the payback period first and then bracket the IRR.
- Good candidates correctly calculate sessions per day and annual revenue
- Strong candidates also account for electricity cost as a variable expense and arrive at a reasonable cash flow estimate
- Excellent candidates compute the IRR by recognizing the cash flow stream as an annuity and using the payback reciprocal as a starting estimate, then refining
Question 3Judgement & Insights
Based on Exhibit 1, which three countries should ChargeNet prioritize for its initial rollout, and why?
Hint · Judgement & Insights
Read the exhibit title, axes and units first. Lead with the ‘so what’, then back it with one or two numbers.
Additional InformationAsk for more dataHide data
- Hand the candidate Exhibit 1 (European EV Adoption by Country)
- If asked: the fund can deploy in any Western European country but wants to concentrate capital in 3 markets for the first phase (200 of the 400 stations)
- Highway corridor density is highest in Germany (13,000 km of Autobahn), France (11,600 km of autoroutes), and Italy (6,900 km of autostrada)
- Permitting timelines vary: Germany 6--9 months, France 9--12 months, Netherlands 4--6 months, Italy 12--18 months, Spain 12--18 months
Exhibit 1European EV Adoption by Country (2025)
| Country | EV Penetration (% of new car sales) | EV Fleet (millions) | DC Fast Chargers per 1,000 EVs | Fleet YoY Growth |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Norway | 88% | 1.2 | 28 | 8% |
| Sweden | 42% | 0.6 | 22 | 15% |
| Netherlands | 36% | 0.9 | 30 | 18% |
| Belgium | 28% | 0.5 | 19 | 22% |
| UK | 25% | 2.1 | 16 | 26% |
| Germany | 24% | 2.8 | 14 | 28% |
| France | 22% | 1.8 | 11 | 30% |
| Austria | 20% | 0.3 | 17 | 25% |
| Italy | 12% | 0.8 | 8 | 35% |
| Spain | 10% | 0.6 | 7 | 38% |
| Other W. Europe | 15% | 0.4 | 12 | 28% |
| Total / Avg | 22% | 12.0 | 15 | 25% |
Source: ChargeNet case file
Try it first, then checkShow model answerHide model answer
The three priority countries should be Germany, France, and Italy. Here is the reasoning:
Germany (top priority)
- Largest EV fleet in Western Europe at 2.8 million vehicles
- Strong growth at 28% year-over-year
- Significant infrastructure gap: only 14 DC fast chargers per 1,000 EVs, well below Norway (28) or the Netherlands (30)
- Densest highway network in Europe (13,000 km of Autobahn) with highest corridor traffic volumes
- Relatively fast permitting (6--9 months)
- Strategic hub: a German network connects naturally to France, Netherlands, Austria, and Italy
France (second priority)
- Second-largest fleet among underserved markets at 1.8 million EVs
- Fastest growth rate among large markets at 30% YoY
- Most underserved major market: only 11 DC fast chargers per 1,000 EVs
- Extensive autoroute network (11,600 km) connecting to Germany, Spain, Italy, and Belgium
- Critical transit country for cross-border holiday traffic (summer north-south flows)
Italy (third priority)
- Smaller fleet today (0.8 million) but fastest growth trajectory at 35% YoY
- Most underserved market in the dataset: only 8 DC fast chargers per 1,000 EVs
- Key north-south A1 corridor (Milan--Rome--Naples) sees very high traffic density
- Alpine crossing corridors (Brenner Pass to Austria/Germany) are essential for cross-border connectivity
- Although permitting is slower (12--18 months), early entry secures prime locations before competitors
Why not other countries?
- Norway and Sweden: high penetration but already well-served (28 and 22 chargers per 1,000 EVs); lower growth (8% and 15%); limited additional demand
- Netherlands: well-served (30 per 1,000) and geographically small; few long-distance highway corridors
- UK: large fleet (2.1M) but island geography isolates it from the continental corridor network; separate market entry
- Spain: high growth (38%) but smallest fleet (0.6M) and slow permitting; better as a Phase 2 market connected via French corridors
What the interviewer is looking forShow guidanceHide guidance
This question tests whether the candidate can synthesize multiple data dimensions rather than optimizing on a single metric. A candidate who picks the three countries with the largest fleets is decent; one who also considers growth rates, infrastructure gaps, and corridor density is strong; one who builds an explicit scoring framework and considers operational factors is excellent.
- Good candidates identify Germany as the clear first choice (largest fleet, high growth, low charger density) and pick two more large markets
- Strong candidates weigh fleet size against growth rate and infrastructure gap, recognizing that fast-growing, underserved markets offer the best risk-adjusted returns
- Excellent candidates also factor in highway corridor density, permitting timelines, and strategic sequencing (e.g., building contiguous cross-border corridors)
Question 4Creativity
What business model innovations could ChargeNet pursue to improve the investment thesis beyond basic charge-per-kWh revenue?
Hint · Creativity
Brainstorm in buckets (e.g. internal vs external, short vs long term) so ideas stay structured and you can see gaps.
Additional InformationAsk for more dataHide data
- Share only if the candidate asks: current ancillary revenue assumption is €3 per session; industry leaders achieve €5--7 per session
- Average dwell time during a charging session is 25 minutes --- this is "captive" consumer time
- Fleet operators (delivery companies, ride-hailing, rental car companies) account for 15% of fast-charging demand and are growing at 40% per year
- Some charging operators have experimented with dynamic pricing, subscription models, and advertising
Try it first, then checkShow model answerHide model answer
1. Fleet and B2B Charging Contracts
- Sign dedicated charging agreements with logistics operators (DHL, Amazon), ride-hailing platforms (Uber, Bolt), and rental car fleets (Europcar, Sixt)
- Offer volume-discounted rates (€0.38--0.42/kWh) in exchange for guaranteed minimum consumption
- Impact: fleets charge during off-peak hours (overnight, early morning), boosting utilization from 30% toward 40% without cannibalizing peak revenue
- Quantification: 100 fleet contracts averaging 500 sessions/month at €14/session = €8.4M incremental annual revenue across the network
2. Dynamic Pricing and Demand Management
- Implement time-of-day pricing: €0.55/kWh during peak hours (Friday afternoon, holiday departures), €0.35/kWh during off-peak
- Use real-time pricing displayed in navigation apps to shift demand to less congested stations
- Impact: increases revenue per session during peaks by 20%+ while smoothing demand across the network
3. Retail and Hospitality Ecosystem
- Co-develop charging hubs with convenience retail partners (Shell Select, Autogrill, Starbucks)
- Revenue share model: ChargeNet provides the captive audience (25 minutes of dwell time), retail partner operates the store
- Impact: increase ancillary revenue from €3 to €6--8 per session; at 31,400 sessions per station per year, an additional €3/session adds €94K per station or €37.6M across 400 stations
4. Charging-as-a-Service Subscriptions
- Offer monthly subscription plans for frequent EV drivers (e.g., €49/month for 200 kWh included, €0.35/kWh thereafter)
- Creates predictable recurring revenue and customer lock-in
- Subscribers could get priority access and reserved slots, justifying premium pricing
5. Grid Services and Energy Arbitrage
- Install battery storage at stations to buy wholesale electricity during low-price periods and sell during peaks
- Offer grid balancing services to utilities (frequency regulation) using station batteries and, potentially, bidirectional vehicle-to-grid charging
- Impact: reduce effective electricity cost from €0.12 to €0.08/kWh through arbitrage, saving approximately €12.5M annually across the network
6. Data Monetization and Advertising
- Aggregate anonymized charging behavior data (routes, timing, dwell patterns) and sell insights to automakers, insurers, and urban planners
- Deploy digital advertising screens at stations targeting a captive, high-income audience (EV early adopters tend to be affluent)
- Impact: incremental €1--2 per session in advertising and data revenue
What the interviewer is looking forShow guidanceHide guidance
This question rewards creative thinking grounded in the economics of the case. Push back gently on ideas that sound interesting but would not materially move the needle on a €500M investment. Strong candidates will identify 2--3 high-impact ideas and quantify at least one.
- Good candidates suggest 2--3 plausible ideas (subscriptions, advertising, retail partnerships)
- Strong candidates connect innovations to specific economic levers (utilization, revenue per session, cost reduction) and estimate magnitude
- Excellent candidates propose a platform or ecosystem strategy that creates compounding advantages over time
Question 5Synthesis
Given everything we have discussed, should ChargeNet Capital invest the €500M? What is your recommendation?
Hint · Synthesis
Answer first: the recommendation, two or three reasons with numbers, then risks and next steps.
Additional InformationAsk for more dataHide data
- No additional data. The candidate should synthesize their prior answers.
Try it first, then checkShow model answerHide model answer
Recommendation: Yes, ChargeNet Capital should invest, with a phased approach.
The investment thesis is attractive for three reasons:
-
Unit economics work at achievable utilization levels. At 30% utilization --- below the 35% highway average --- a single station generates a 23--24% IRR, well above the fund's 15% hurdle rate. Even at 25% utilization, the IRR is approximately 17%, still clearing the hurdle. The breakeven point of approximately 20% utilization provides meaningful downside cushion.
-
Structural tailwinds are strong and accelerating. The EV fleet is growing 25% annually, combustion engine bans are legislated for 2030--2035, and government mandates increasingly require charging infrastructure along highway corridors. Utilization rates will rise structurally as the fleet grows --- ChargeNet is building assets whose demand profile improves every year.
-
Highway corridors have a natural moat. Unlike urban charging, where home and workplace charging compete, highway fast-charging has no substitute. Once ChargeNet secures prime highway locations and grid connections, these become scarce assets that are difficult and time-consuming for competitors to replicate.
Proposed phased approach:
- Phase 1 (Year 1--2): €200M for 160 stations in Germany and France, targeting the highest-traffic corridors (A1, A3, A5, A7 in Germany; A1, A6, A7 in France). Validate unit economics and ramp-up assumptions.
- Phase 2 (Year 2--3): €150M for 120 stations expanding into Italy and connecting cross-border corridors. Deploy only if Phase 1 stations achieve 25%+ utilization within 12 months.
- Phase 3 (Year 3--4): €150M for 120 stations filling secondary corridors in priority countries and expanding to Spain and Benelux. Funded by Phase 1 cash flows and potential co-investment from strategic partners.
Key risks and mitigants:
| Risk | Mitigant |
|---|---|
| Utilization below target | Phased rollout limits capital at risk; pivot to fleet contracts if consumer demand lags |
| Technology obsolescence (150 kW becoming outdated) | Modular charger design allows upgrade to 350 kW; infrastructure and grid connection retain value |
| Competitive overbuild by Ionity or Tesla | Focus on securing exclusive or long-term site leases at prime locations; first-mover advantage in underserved corridors |
| Electricity price volatility | Hedge with long-term power purchase agreements; install on-site battery storage for arbitrage |
| Regulatory price caps on charging | Diversify revenue to reduce dependence on per-kWh margin; ancillary revenue provides buffer |
If the investment committee approves, the immediate next steps should be:
- Secure site options on the top 50 highway locations in Germany and France within 90 days
- Negotiate grid connection timelines with national operators
- Launch fleet partnership discussions with 3--5 major logistics operators
- Finalize charger procurement contracts to lock in pricing at scale
Contributed by CaseDrill practice community
What the interviewer is looking forShow guidanceHide guidance
This is the final recommendation. A strong candidate will take a clear position, support it with evidence from prior questions, acknowledge key risks, and propose concrete next steps. Push back on hedging --- the investment committee needs a yes or no.
- Good candidates give a clear recommendation with 2--3 supporting reasons from the case
- Strong candidates structure their recommendation as "Yes, but with conditions" and identify specific risk mitigants
- Excellent candidates propose a phased investment approach that manages downside risk while preserving upside, and tie their recommendation back to the fund's strategic objectives