Noah Kaye: Yes, very fair, thank you. And then just a quick housekeeping item, the release and your comments mentioned $41 million spend on acquisitions in the period. The — line item in the cash flow statement, obviously, well north of that. And I assume that delta is primarily related to the sustainability investments, maybe some renewable energy projects. Can you maybe just help us with that bridge and how to think about full year spending, even excluding the M&A that you hope to do in the balance of the year?
Brian DelGhiaccio: Yes. Most of that is the investment that we’re making in those JVs. So we would expect between what we’re doing on the landfill gas to energy, as well as the investments in blue polymers be about $230 million of investments in those JVs in 2024.
Noah Kaye: Okay $230 million and so it sounds like you spent a good chunk of that and already just doing some quick math here. So that tapers off as we move to the back half?
Brian DelGhiaccio: It does. Yes.
Noah Kaye: All right. Excellent. Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. The next question comes from David Manthey with Baird. Please go ahead.
David Manthey: Thank you. Good afternoon. Could you provide us with some details on the timing, size and type of acquisition that you did in Environmental Solutions. It looks like volume growth was about 3.2% this quarter and wondering how much of that was with the acquisition?
Brian DelGhiaccio: Well, the acquisition that we completed was in the fourth quarter of 2023. So most of what you’re seeing there on the Environmental Solutions side, is the rollover impact of a company that we bought out on the West Coast. And we talked about that in our fourth quarter release. But when you think about the total rollover impact right now of acquisitions, which closed in 2023, together with the deals that closed in the first quarter, it’s about 220 basis points of rollover impact to revenue in 2024.
David Manthey: Okay. Thank you. And this enterprise asset management initiative you have, you talked about maintenance productivity and warranty recovery, could you explain to me what that means and maybe size the opportunity there?
Brian DelGhiaccio: Yes. Now you’ve got a system which is going to be seamlessly integrated. So when you think about the platform that we put on both the financial and the procurement side, now being seamlessly integrated with an asset management system. So our ability to track parts and to be able to sit there and make sure that we’re getting warranty recovery on every single part that we take off a truck greatly enhanced. Right now, it’s a very manual exercise in order to sit there and to get those warranty dollars as well as just greater efficiency for the technician. So what that means is, with that extra time and that capacity that’s created, we can in-source more of those repairs. So instead of outsourcing at a multiple, in order to sit there and have those repairs done with a third-party shop, we can do those in-house.
David Manthey: Thank you very much.
Operator: Thank you. The next question comes from Sabahat Khan with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Sabahat Khan: Great. Thanks and good afternoon. Just maybe if we could get a little bit of color on sort of the volume cadence you expect for the rest of the year. A couple of your peers have called out bit of softer Q2 there. Maybe just your expectation on cadence and if that’s changed versus what you might have expected at Q4 reporting a bit earlier.
Brian DelGhiaccio: Yes, we would expect obviously a sequential improvement from what we saw in Q1 just because we don’t — we’re not expecting the weather impact again. Q2, yes, we would expect it to be a little bit negative given what we’re seeing with some of the construction-related activity. We’re not seeing a rebound there yet. As we get into the second half of the year, we start to anniversary some of those construction-related declines. So we would expect that to be flat to even potentially slightly positive.
Sabahat Khan: Okay, great. And then on the PFAS front, you guys have obviously a bit of a unique exposure with the environmental business. Maybe if you look at the puts and the takes across our entire business, obviously, it’s a bit early, but just curious how you’re sort of approaching that opportunity and kind of the net impact of any additional costs? Just how do you view that entire opportunity given your two business lines?
Jon Vander Ark: Yes. We’re — it’s a net positive for sure. We talked about kind of $70 million to $90 million last year of PFAS related revenue, we’ll have that number better this year with the pipeline that’s building. So we offer a very unique set of products and services to our customers to help them remediate all the way from the service to multiple opportunities for disposal, solid waste, landfill obviously. For low levels, PFAS landfills deep well, and that solution is certainly resonating with our customers. It was on the other side of the business and that’s a multiyear opportunity that’s going to play out over time. And there’s — certainly the size and scale of that opportunity is hard to size yet because it does depend a bit on the regulatory environment.
And likewise, on the waste and recycling side, there certainly could be some headwinds there if this thing is poorly executed. I think the industry is doing a good job of pushing back and making sure that we don’t get penalized as being a passive receiver. And I would say, from a litigation standpoint and more broadly, as regulation increases in the industry, if you think about the last 25, 30 years, we’ve done a really good job of passing on that cost of regulation and not making that hurt returns. And I think over time, given the nature and complexity, it favors the larger players. So we want regulation to be thoughtful and intelligent, but we see that, again, over time, wandering through PFAS.
Sabahat Khan: Great. Thanks very much.
