So buying these companies essentially with no out-of-pocket dollars. But I’ve seen in the past two years or three years that changed dramatically. Rollover dollars have become less. The leverage has become smaller maybe down to six times or even less. And what’s happened is I think that some private equity who are not equity entities that are not as familiar with this industry may have overpaid dramatically. And in fact based on the — and you’re going to see it through all sorts of different metrics if you’re in the industry I could take it off-line and go into all the details you’d see what those are. And I think they may end up having to break up and sell components and look for more what I would call appropriate valuations that would make it attractive for us.
I think they’ll try auctions, but I’ve actually seen management’s team say that I don’t want to go to X. So I’m also seeing management teams interact with private equity to actually have us say where they go. And when a company has a say where they want to go for a career nobody is a better destination than Tetra Tech period. And I think it can be a win-win for the shareholders, we can actually help out private equity where they need to monetize portions of an overpaid investment and it could be good for Tetra Tech. So a straight-up auction where you pay a higher number because they want to flip it and yield some large return that may not be as viable as it was when interest rates were sub-1%. So maybe a little bit more detail than you were looking at but it does reflect the perspective we have here at Tetra Tech.
Andy Wittmann: I appreciate the context and thanks for indulging on that one. Just a technical question maybe Steve for you to wrap up for me. Can you quantify the amount of Ukraine net revenue in the quarter as well as any contribution that you expected from Ukraine in the second quarter guidance? Thank you.
Steve Burdick: Yes. In the last quarter it was probably right around $75 million is what came in from Ukraine. And that was…
Andy Wittmann: That’s gross or net revenue? Sorry.
Steve Burdick: Net. And that was about $35 million more than what we had expected going into the quarter just because there was quite a few contracts that were won late after we released earnings.
Andy Wittmann: Got it. And then is there any expectation for second quarter revenue contribution from Ukraine?
Steve Burdick: Yes. There’s we have contracts that are continuing and that’s included in our guidance. Right around there $20 million to $40 million-ish is our estimate.
Andy Wittmann: Great. Thank you very much. Have a nice day, guys.
Steve Burdick: Thank you very much, Andy.
Operator: Thank you. Our last question is from Michael Dudas with Vertical Research Partners. Please proceed with your question.
Michael Dudas: Thank you for squeezing me in. Appreciate it. Just quickly on your assessment you talked a bit about it on the last call about renewable energy and some what’s been going on with some of the volatility in that space. Maybe some updated thoughts, as you sit in 24 weeks through the lens of RPS and what you’re doing internationally and some of the wind and offshore work that’s been the kind of push and pull here in North America.
Dan Batrack: Yes, it’s a really good question. I’ll start with renewable energy overall, for us is four big ones and call it one small one. So it’s onshore wind, offshore wind, solar, hydro and a little bit of geothermal. So that’s our – that’s primarily our truly renewable energy, a portfolio of areas that we’re focused on. And no doubt, the supply chain, which is code for increased costs and availability of turbines, towers, labor, other items has gone up and has created some volatility for sure. We’re not really engaged that much on the on-site support of the construction activities. We do compliance that they’re meeting their environmental permits and water quality monitoring and things like this. So most of the work we’re doing on the upfront permitting work.
So it is interesting. We did support a number of the – some of the programs that have actually been canceled or tabled and they’re looking to sell them or I don’t know if I call the word offload but provide them to other developers that it may make their financial measure better. And so that has given us a chance to do the work all over again. So what has been one project may turn into two projects or three projects, if it rolls over again. So it is interesting on the upfront work. It’s actually been pretty good for us interestingly enough. I certainly don’t want to say that a misfortune because of economic challenges for a developer turned into good fortune for us. But we do think that we can help the clients turn lemons into lemonade with respect to what was a difficult situation into something that can actually yield value through a different permitting process or changing the number of power generation locations.
We’ve not seen that impact quite as much on solar. We’ve not seen hydro. It’s a big item. As you know hydro has generated about half of the overall renewable energy power generation across North America, about half of it comes just from hydro. I think the most recent number is like 44%. So that’s done well for us. And of course, the big push for environmental impacts associated with impacts the fisheries and others. Some have said taking Thames down. You can hardly imagine the number of permitting technical evaluations things with respect to fisheries, everything else endagered species with respect to taking something down or what we are big advocate. I think it can be a win-win. We’re doing a lot of work on hydro with fish passages. So how can you actually include or expand fish passages such that you can restore the habitat for fisheries while still maintaining power generation and flood control along major river systems across North America.
