Electromobility has arrived in everyday life – and with it, charging infrastructure is once again moving into the focus of institutional investors. But unlike in the first wave, the pure growth narrative is no longer enough. Today, economic efficiency, technology cycles, electricity price risks and grid connection determine whether charging parks are a resilient infrastructure investment or a technology-driven special case. The following conversation between Tobias Moroni and Dr. Andreas Peppel, Managing Director at Institutional Investment Consulting Partners, classifies charging infrastructure from an investor’s point of view – between structural tailwind and operational complexity.
Tobias Moroni: Hello Andreas, Charging infrastructure has been part of many infrastructure funds for years. Why is the topic now coming back onto the agenda?
Dr. Andreas Peppel: Because the framework conditions have changed. The technological development of battery-electric vehicles – shorter charging times, longer ranges – makes e-mobility suitable for everyday use. At the same time, it has been shown that previous assumptions about the risk-return profile of many charging parks were optimistic or at least fuzzy from the operator’s point of view. It is precisely this gap that is now being addressed in an analytically cleaner way.
Tobias Moroni: In preparation for our conversation, you told me that you would bring a case outline for illustrative purposes, as it is certainly the subject of your consulting practice. What exactly is it about?
Dr. Andreas Peppel: An urban park and ride charging park in Germany with 20 charging points is being considered: 16 DC fast chargers in the range of 150 to 350 kW and 4 AC chargers with 22 kW. This is a typical use case, as it is currently being examined in funds.
Tobias Moroni: What are the realistic return expectations?
Dr. Andreas Peppel: The business plan assumes an IRR of about 8 to 10 percent over ten years. This is in line with the market consensus for this segment – neither aggressive nor defensive, but solid in the infrastructure spectrum.
Tobias Moroni: What about the project risks?
Dr. Andreas Peppel: In my specific case study, the classic project development risk is largely eliminated because all permits have been obtained and the site is “ready to build”. The greatest uncertainties are currently less in building law than in grid connections. Long waiting times by distribution system operators are delaying many projects considerably.
Tobias Moroni: I assume that a central point of the investment case is occupancy. Which assumptions are viable?
Dr. Andreas Peppel: Experience has shown that the economic lower limit is around 15 percent. In this respect, occupancy rates above this offer a certain buffer. This presupposes that the location, i.e. location and traffic frequency, also support such calculations.
Tobias Moroni: How critical is the electricity price risk?
Dr. Andreas Peppel: Quite critical. In my case study, the retail price of around 0.60 euros per kWh is customary in the market. However, the decisive factor for the margin of the charge point operator is the purchase price of the electricity and the level of the grid charges. These parameters can have a massive impact on the contribution margin. The volatility of electricity prices also makes it difficult to conclude long-term purchase agreements and thus reliable yield forecasts.
Tobias Moroni: What role does technological progress play in the evaluation?
Dr. Andreas Peppel: A central role. The current generation of vehicles is increasingly using 800-volt technology. To exploit their potential, charging capacities of at least 350 kW are required. Even higher benefits are foreseeable. This means that existing systems age quickly.
Tobias Moroni: What does this mean for investors in concrete terms?
Dr. Andreas Peppel: Residual values must be set conservatively, and CapEx for a plant replacement – after about five years – must be realistically planned. Slow AC chargers are particularly critical. If fast charging becomes cheaper and more efficient, they will lose much of their attractiveness.
Tobias Moroni: Does this mean that charging infrastructure is more of a technology investment than an infrastructure investment?
Dr. Andreas Peppel: It’s a hybrid category. Profitability depends not only on location and demand, but also on technology cycles, energy prices and regulatory frameworks. This is precisely what makes the analysis complex – and distinguishes charging infrastructure from classic core infrastructure.
Tobias Moroni: Nevertheless, you speak of a possible “renaissance”. Why?
Dr. Andreas Peppel: Because the structural trend is clear. The combustion engine will be replaced by the BEV in the future. This expectation is not political, but industrially driven. The innovation dynamics of car manufacturers are forcing infrastructure to follow suit. For investors, this means that it will not be a sure-fire success, but a segment with a long-term tailwind – as long as technology, cost structure and capacity utilisation fit together cleanly.
