Answers

Material

• Path from Marlowe (advising 6 municipal utilities, the 9,000-customer co-op solar deal) to Keystone Sunshare (building 9 projects, 41 MW) It's the spine of your resume: advising on what to buy, then learning to build, then wanting to fund.
• Growing up in Allentown and the Camden low-income enrollment work (31% to 52%) Gives the interviewer a person, not just a model-builder, and sets up your long-term goal.
• Immediate goal: associate, energy infrastructure investing The walkthrough should land where your essay does, so the interview matches your file.

The angle

Gregory has only your resume, so he'll see finance roles in solar without knowing why they connect. Your thread is capital: Marlowe showed you how small utilities buy, Keystone showed you what makes a project live or die, and now you want to be on the side that decides which projects get funded. Keep it to 2-3 minutes and let the Allentown and Camden details show why it matters to you.

Talking points

1. Open with Penn State finance plus the Earth Sciences minor, and the 20-25 hours a week as dining shift supervisor, in one line
2. Marlowe: rate models for 6 municipal utilities, the 20-year co-op solar agreement signed in 2023
3. Keystone: the jump to Senior Associate, the $38M closing, and the Lehigh County walk-away as the moment capital clicked
4. Name Allentown and the Camden blocks as why you care where projects get built
5. Close on associate in energy infrastructure investing and why CBS in New York is the next step

Avoid: Don't recite the Lehigh essay in full or list every bullet. He was a credit analyst who reads footnotes, so give one sharp number per role instead of all of them.

Material

• Essay 1's three gaps: fund-level finance, never having had direct reports, a network outside Pennsylvania This is your why-MBA logic already on file, and the interviewer checks that you match it.
• Senior Associate role since Jan 2026: owning 9 projects (41 MW) and presenting go/no-go to the investment committee It shows you've hit the ceiling of project-level finance at a 60-person developer, which is the 'now'.
• Federal tax credit phase-down, from Essay 1 This is market timing. Underwriting is getting harder just as you'd graduate.

The angle

You've sat on the developer side of the table pitching to tax-equity investors and lenders. The MBA is how you move to the side that decides, and an ex-PE, ex-credit interviewer will appreciate that shift. The 'now' holds up because you already present to an investment committee, yet you've never managed anyone or seen fund economics. Keep the three gaps concrete, using deals from your resume rather than abstractions.

Talking points

1. Open with the $38M, 14 MW close: you were on the side asking for capital
2. Name the gap you saw from there, how the tax-equity investor priced risk, and why a project model doesn't teach fund economics
3. Leadership gap: Fairhill crews and diligence workstreams, but no direct reports yet
4. Why now: the tax credit phase-down, plus already presenting to the IC at Keystone
5. Why not learn it on the job? What would you answer if he asks?

To think about

Have you tried to move into a fund without an MBA? Why wouldn't Keystone or a lateral move close these gaps?

Avoid: He has only your resume, so don't recite Essay 1's gap list word for word. Also avoid sounding like you're fleeing Keystone. You have strong recent wins there.

Material

• Short answer goal: Associate, energy infrastructure investing, plus Essay 1's three gaps (fund economics, leading a team, national network) Why CBS has to answer those specific gaps, not praise the school in general.
• Lehigh County write-off ($410K instead of a negative-return build) It connects directly to the Value Investing Program's margin-of-safety discipline you named in Essay 3.
• Plan B: development finance at a larger developer or utility Shows CBS serves both paths, so your answer holds up if he pushes on it.

The angle

Your interviewer has seen only your resume, so tie each CBS resource to one gap from Essay 1: fund economics (Heilbrunn/VPI, Private Equity pathway), leadership (Lead core, Bernstein Center) and a network beyond Pennsylvania (New York's infrastructure investors). Gregory went through VPI himself and spent his early career as a credit analyst, so your Lehigh underwriting story will mean more to him than a list of program names.

Talking points

1. Open on the gap: you can model a 41 MW pipeline but not a fund's portfolio
2. Map gap one to Heilbrunn/Value Investing Program and margin of safety, citing the Lehigh $3.1M upgrade estimate
3. Map gap two (no direct reports yet) to Lead and the Bernstein Center
4. Map gap three to infrastructure capital in New York during the school year
5. Close on Tamer Institute and Climate pathway for your long-term rust-belt/Camden fund idea

To think about

Which current CBS student or alum in infrastructure investing have you actually talked to, and what did they tell you?

Avoid: Don't recite Essay 3. With a VPI alum, don't overclaim VPI: it admits only 40 second-years by application, so describe it as a goal.

Material

• AI-assisted interconnection review (two days down to half a day per study) A natural bridge to the AI and Data Analytics pathway.
• Federal tax credit phase-down point in Essay 1 Justifies interest in courses on new investor types and infrastructure finance.
• Financial Statement Analysis B+ and two GMAT sittings (615 to 655) Honest reasons you want rigorous finance coursework.

The angle

Name actual courses tied to the work: how investors underwrite risk after tax-credit phase-downs, fund economics, and the VPI sequence. Since you mention the Climate pathway, Climate Business & Investment Conference and the Lead core, show you know the structure: 18 core credits, exemption exams to free up electives, and up to six credits from other Columbia schools, such as the Climate School.

Talking points

1. Name two or three real elective titles you've checked in the CBS catalog, each tied to underwriting distributed solar or storage
2. Mention testing out of a core finance course to open room for electives, using your Corporate Finance A- and CFA Level I
3. Cross-register at the Columbia Climate School for energy policy, one of the six credits allowed
4. AI and Data Analytics pathway as the next step after your interconnection checklist tool

To think about

Which exact course titles and professors have you looked up? The application names only programs, not courses.

Avoid: Vague answers like 'climate finance classes' expose thin research. Only name courses you've confirmed exist.

Material

• Lehigh County recommendation: abandon the 5 MW project after the upgrade estimate rose from $0.6M to $3.1M; $410K write-off instead of a negative-return build Shows what you value: underwriting discipline over attachment to your own project. It's an unusual 'success', which makes it memorable.
• AI-assisted interconnection study review: two days down to about half a day per study, with engineer verification A recent, concrete project you built yourself, with a clear before-and-after number.

The angle

Gregory was a credit analyst who learned that the footnotes matter, and he did value investing at CBS. A success that is a disciplined 'no' (Lehigh) will land with him, as long as you frame it as protecting capital rather than as a failure. Pick one story as your main answer, and keep the AI review ready if he asks for something you built.

Talking points

1. Name the success up front: talking the committee into walking away from your own Lehigh project
2. Give the numbers: $0.6M to $3.1M upgrade estimate, $410K written off versus a negative return
3. Mention rerunning the model four times, but only briefly, then explain what made the recommendation hard (eight months of work, the farmer leasing the land)
4. Say why you're proud of it: it's the same margin-of-safety idea that draws you to the Value Investing Program
5. If he asks for a 'build' success, switch to the AI review: two days down to half a day, with an engineer checking every checklist

To think about

What happened after the write-off? Did the committee change how it screens interconnection risk early, and did your AI review grow out of Lehigh?

Avoid: Don't recite your Essay 1 opening ('hardest email') word for word. He hasn't read it, but it will sound scripted. Also, the committee made the call; you recommended it.

Material

• The 14 MW financing disagreement with the finance director over panel degradation (Essay 2) A real disagreement with a senior colleague, settled privately with data and without anyone losing face.
• The 0.4% returns cost and closing two weeks early on $38M Concrete numbers show the conflict was resolved and the result held up.

The angle

Gregory has only your resume, so he hasn't read Essay 2. The story is new to him, but it has to match what the committee read. What shows empathy here is that you asked for the half hour before the investor call rather than challenging your boss in front of the investor, and that he still got to present both cases. As a former credit analyst who says the footnotes matter, he'll respect that your argument rested on 2023 operating data rather than the warranty.

Talking points

1. Set the stakes: tax-equity investor questioning degradation, $38M financing at risk
2. Name the disagreement: director relying on the manufacturer warranty, you pointing to faster degradation on two sites in the 2023 data
3. Explain the choice of a private half hour before the investor call, and why not during it
4. Give the 0.4% cost and the idea of 'buying credibility', then the outcome of closing two weeks early
5. How did the director react afterward? Did the way you two work together change?

To think about

What did the director say or feel in that meeting, and what did you concede to him? A strong answer shows you understood his side, not just that you were right.

Avoid: Making yourself the hero who corrected the boss. Your director is likely Daniel Okonjo, your recommender, so give him credit for agreeing to present both cases.

Material

• Adding site technicians to the weekly diligence calls, which surfaced an inverter issue Shows your view that a team works when the people who know the most are actually in the room.
• Volleyball team captain in the Wednesday league A low-stakes, human example of keeping a mixed group playing well together.
• Fairhill Weatherization Saturday crews Rotating volunteers with no formal authority is a real test of making a team function.

The angle

Your evidence points to two ingredients: the right information reaching the people deciding, and roles that are clear even when nobody reports to anyone. Answer the second half, about a team that isn't working, with what you actually do on a Saturday crew or a volleyball court, not with a theory. This matters for CBS clusters, and Gregory was in Cluster D himself.

Talking points

1. Name your one or two principles, tied to the technicians and the inverter issue
2. Show how it plays out with no authority: running a Fairhill crew of volunteers through a rowhouse
3. Answer the dysfunction half: which first move would you make on a struggling crew or volleyball team?
4. Connect it to a CBS cluster or study team in your first term

To think about

Which time was a Fairhill crew or your volleyball team actually not working, and what did you change?

Avoid: Giving generic principles like communication and trust. Also don't retell the technicians story in the same detail you'll use for the inclusion question; pick your emphasis for each.

Material

• AI-assisted review of utility interconnection studies (two days to about half a day per study) It's your own build, with a measured result, so you can talk about AI from doing rather than reading.
• The engineer who verifies the model's checklist It shows you know where AI stops and judgment starts, which matters in diligence.
• Lehigh County upgrade estimate jumping from $0.6M to $3.1M Interconnection conditions buried in long reports are what decide whether a project lives, so faster review changes go/no-go decisions.

The angle

You aren't guessing about AI. You built a tool that pulls conditions and deadlines out of 200-page interconnection studies, and you kept an engineer in the loop to check it. Connect it to what actually kills projects, like the Lehigh upgrade cost. Gregory was a credit analyst who believes 'footnotes matter more than headlines', and that is close to the point of your tool.

Talking points

1. Open with the problem: 200-page utility interconnection studies and the conditions and deadlines hidden inside them
2. Explain the design choice: the language model drafts the checklist, an engineer verifies it, and why you kept that step
3. Give the number: two days down to about half a day per study, and what your team did with the time saved
4. Zoom out to the industry: interconnection queues and upgrade costs like Lehigh's $3.1M as the bottleneck where AI can help underwriting
5. Where hasn't AI helped, or what has it gotten wrong? Have one honest limit ready

To think about

Did the tool ever miss or misread a condition, and how did you catch it? How many studies has it processed, and did anyone outside your team adopt it?

Avoid: Don't oversell it as transforming the company; it's a review aid with human checking. Also avoid drifting into generic generative-AI hype without tying it back to project finance.

Material

• Essay 1 line on federal tax credits being phased down It's your thesis on the industry shift and links straight to your post-MBA goal.
• New Jersey low-income subscription rule change and the subscriber-revenue model you rebuilt A concrete example of policy changing the economics of a project, which you had to absorb in the model.
• Panel degradation debate in the 14 MW, $38M financing It shows investors underwriting more conservatively, which you saw firsthand.

The angle

Your view is that as subsidies shrink, capital gets pickier, so underwriting quality decides which projects get built. You've lived three versions of this: policy-driven revenue rules in New Jersey, a tax-equity investor challenging assumptions, and rising interconnection costs. Gregory has done PE and M&A, so frame it as a capital-markets story about who funds what and on what terms, not a climate pitch.

Talking points

1. State the shift in one line: tax credits phasing down, so projects need sharper underwriting and new kinds of investors
2. Example one: the New Jersey low-income rule change, and your rebuilt model now used on every bid
3. Example two: the tax-equity investor questioning degradation, and the conservative case that cost only 0.4% of returns
4. Example three: utility upgrade costs, with Lehigh's $0.6M to $3.1M jump
5. Tie it to why you want to sit on the fund side deciding which projects get funded

To think about

What do you expect to happen to community solar developers of Keystone's size over the next few years: consolidation, failures, new investor types? Have a view you can defend if pushed.

Avoid: Keep it current and specific. Avoid a partisan policy rant, and don't recite Essay 1, since he hasn't read it.