Hi, good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for joining us after lunch. I am really excited to have a conversation with Quanta Services. Joining us from Quanta is Duke Austin, the CEO, and also Jayshree Desai, who is the CFO. We'll just have a fireside chat. I've got a lot of questions lined up, for those of you in the room, I'm told there's a blue card here. You hit the QR code, if you want your questions answered, I've got my trusty iPad, I'll make sure that happens. Yeah, let's first of all thank you. Thank you for joining us. Thanks, Chad. The first question I have is on just the portfolio. Over the last five years, Quanta has done a lot between the M&A. There's been clearly a big acceleration in electrical infrastructure build-out. The question I have is, just talk about what you've become and why this version of Quanta is right for the moment at hand. Thanks, Chad. Thanks for having us. Thanks for the interest. Fundamentally, I think at the core of Quanta is the same with the craft, and we've really worked hard to build a professional model within craft along all skill sets. In saying that, I do think as we've evolved as a company and how we look today, it's different. I think we've transformed the company in many ways, and we've become something to the customer where it's a collaboration to get where they want to go. We're really having discussions at the client level, at the customer level, and even to make sure that it's not impacting their customer. I do think it's different, and I think we're in a different spot than we were in the past because of where we sit with craft. As we have those discussions really around capital budgets, timing, how they interface, I think people really, when we have large load on one side and utility on the other, the dynamics are different. One's trying to go as fast as they possibly can, one's trying to make sure the ratepayer is in good shape. It seems like a model you meld together, and we're doing that. We're seeing those models where one's willing to pay to make sure the ratepayer's okay, and the other one's wanting to build. We're in the middle of that nexus, and I think as we see it, we can provide tons of solutions around that. We can work with customers on their capital. I think when I hear our customers say, "We're going to use Quanta, and that's how we're going to get our capital budget done," that means something to me. Years ago, you didn't hear that. I think you hear that a lot now. We have common analysts as well, I hear it on both sides. I think that's really our goal is to make our customer more successful. If we do that, we become more successful. I think both sides, from our large load technology type TAM to our utility TAM, and the renewables in the middle of generation in the middle of that. Yeah, look, I think we're in a unique position, great markets. I think we put the company in the right place from a strategy standpoint to grow with multiple ways to grow. Yeah, I think we'll continue to compound earnings. How have all these changes translated your ability to increase the scope of work on a project? Maybe you can talk about maybe five years ago, which share of the project could you attack? And then with some of the acquisitions that you've done and the investments that you made on the supply chain side and areas like that, what does that look like now? Yeah. I think if we go to the utility TAM, in the past, generationally, it was primarily just kind of T&D build construction. We evolved that into some of the engineering supply chain, now the generation of both renewable and fossil. Really, unless they're building nuke, which some of them are, most aren't, that whole addressable market they're talking about is really a market that we can help with besides land or things like that. You get into the 90% from 50% on that big addressable market, which I think we have a good moat there on the utility side that allows us to really lean into that and become part of that industry and help. We've not only got ourselves in there, but we've allowed ourselves to take more of that position on the technology side. You saw this platform acquisition with Cupertino. It really got us into the customer base on technology. They were first movers there, had been with technology for a long time. Now we've built that out to where we've added DSI, our mechanical platform, as well as Tri-City into that, then also our internal electric electrification, that low voltage electric that we put in there as well against that moat and really built that out to, we were just electric, now we can do mechanical. We bought Civil early last year in January. There's not much we can't do. We can do it all. It just depends on if we want to. I do think we were finishing up balance of plant data center today. We self-performed 85% of it. I think the same thing will exist. We're going to do it again. More and more scope, that continues. As we see these big builds coming out, we'll be able to take that addressable market. Other than chips, we're not going to mess with those. It's not us. We'll do the rest. Got it. Okay. Just maybe sticking with M&A. For as long as I've covered Quanta, you had this great flywheel, right? Acquire family businesses, reasonable multiples. As the business has gotten larger, your deal size is going to need to increase to basically maintain the current level of growth. The question I have is, how do you keep that flywheel going? What sort of infrastructure are you putting into place, to ensure that you can sustain this pace of M&A to maintain your growth rate? Look, I don't think we have to transform the business. I think family businesses, the last two are at least 50 years old. I think one's 120, 130 maybe. We see a lot of 100-year-old businesses. They want to perpetuate the name. They want to be a part of something different. We don't really source deals. It's something we do internally. We're not out trying to make acquisitions. They're coming to us. Do they fit the model or not? What does the management team want to do? Are they staying? Are they leaving? We want people to stay with us, stay with us long-term, and buy great companies. I think a fallacy is that we need to make acquisitions. We don't. It's inherent. I look at it like, it's my money, it's your money, I want to spend it in a way where I believe we can get the most growth, we can generate the most cash. That's what we're trying to accomplish with acquisitions, is to make sure we invest free cash in the proper way. I think we've done that, the synergies are there when we make these acquisitions. We haven't bought companies today look, we see the data center market, the companies that we acquired, about 30% of the business was data center. We knew we could grow them because we knew the data center market on the other side, we knew what they did. It's a built-in synergy within the business because we have it at the customer level. We don't have to press these deals to say there's a synergy. We're very disciplined about it. We owe it to our ownership to be disciplined. I think we can continue to acquire great companies with great management teams that really fit our model, and I think we've done a nice job seeing markets, the vertical supply chain, the things that we've done there. We can see the markets and where they're going. As long as we can predict where things are going, we're able to lean into great businesses over time, and yeah, we've done it ourselves. Good. Okay. One through line that I am picking up on the M&A side is that you're leaning more into the mechanical, electrical, plumbing side of craft labor. Can you just expand on that and just how you see that market evolving for Quanta? Maybe from an M&A perspective, but also from just a project-based perspective, right? We're hearing more about these large-scale mega projects, and growing MEP intensity. Maybe spend some time on that, please. Yeah. It's the client. The client's asking us to do more, we're listening. We need platform companies to do that. DSI, we felt like we needed to be in the mechanical business. It's craft. It's something that we relate nicely. Great family. We were able to really lean into that and put some capital in, and we're growing out the fabrication facilities today. We're going to double the size of our fabrication. That's been something that we're able to really meet the customer demand on that. It's not just chips. It's from Tesla to Samsung, all of them. I just think we've really been able to move that way past just the data center piece of it. The craft, I think in the middle of that is just growing that craft. What they want is our ability to give curriculum training, the things that we've invested in since 2009. Management, that's my background. Really being fourth generation is we've really put the time into craft. If we get someone into our facilities that can't climb because they're scared of heights, 100 ft is pretty tall. You ever been up there? It'll get a little shaky on you. Not a lot of people want that. They get back down, about 30% fall out on the first pole. Now, instead of going home, they go to the inside electric, or they go to pipefitter, welder, or plumbers. We're able to really move people around and get a lot more people through our trade organizations. We see a lot of people try, like that'll say, "We'll give you $100 million. That's going to do it. Money doesn't buy craft. Craft builds craft. Journeymen builds journeymen. You can't think that you're going to put $100 million into anything today and get craft tomorrow. That ain't going to happen. It takes years to train. We're very proud of the journeymen that we have and the training we've done, and it's a fallacy to think. We've been investing $200 million a year for the past, I don't know, since 2009, in training, and we're proud of that. I would just say like, not only are we making the acquisitions against it, we're training the people that allow us to get what I would consider the synergies and the outward growth of the company. Got it. Okay. Let's actually shift over to talking more about your end markets. Both Duke, you and Jayshree, you spend a lot of time at the highest levels with clients. I'm talking about the utilities, developers, hyperscalers, colocators. Can you bring us into those conversations? What are their concerns and what are they asking you for? I'll let Jayshree go first. She's in there more than me. Yeah. I think everyone is really excited about where they sit. I think it's a once in a generation opportunity for a lot of our customers and for ourselves. It's generally excitement is what we see. Now, having said that, there are challenges that every part of our business is dealing with. You've got affordability concerns, you've got permitting challenges, you've got political challenges, and you've got speed to market challenges. At every level that we're working with, you've got to be able to address all of those at the same time. I think that's really a unique position that we can sit in because we have the ability to really affect, in some areas more than others, but literally we affect every one of those areas. Our ability to help our customers weave through these dynamics has allowed us to really become more of a partner with every one of them and allow us to give you all the certainty of why we're confident about our five years and even beyond that, what we're seeing around this infrastructure build. It's really a question of what we're seeing is more when, not if. How do we accelerate and get more certain around the when is what we're working with most of our customers. Well, I'll stop there and let Duke add more to that. Yeah. Look, we're in a different spot than we have been. We have a sense of responsibility when people say, we're going to use Quanta to build this capital and stick to our plan. I take it personally. We're discussing it all the time. It showed up in the past year or so where I think the customer's asking us to change them as well. We're trying to change underneath us. We're no longer just building out infrastructure. We're also being asked to look at it outward five years, make sure the supply chain's there, make sure we have right of way, help with permitting, help with political, get us where we want to go. Stay with me. Help me. That discussion's a different discussion than answering an RFQ. It's way different. That's where we're at today, is the discussion's more strategic. It's long. We're prudent about it when we look at it. I commend them for doing it. I do. I think it's something that to get out in front of something and recognize the fact that I'm not going to be able to get this done without help, we have to collaborate ourselves. We're collaborating as well. We need their help to help them. It's very much a 360 the way we're thinking through it with clients today, and the more that we can get involved, the earlier we can get involved, the better we execute it at the price and at the timeframe. Got it. If you look at your utility customers, and then your large load customers, how far out are those conversations extending to? Yeah. We're well past 2030 in places in the utility business especially. It's out past 2030. The large load, I would say even same. Those discussions are ongoing. They're all in different phases, they're all in different time frames, but if you're looking at a combined cycle today, if you order it today, your 30 months, I don't know what they're saying today, but 30, 36 months, whatever they said, it's over 30 months. Then it takes a couple of years to build it. You're five years from today if you order today. Any orders they have, or if they book next quarter, they're five years from the next quarter. Those bookings are pushing outward, so you can see it. You've got to build transmission and substations in. It's going to feed something. You have a lot of power today that's being done, what I would consider a bridge. If you're building 100 megs at times, it's bridge power, it's going to go to the grid at some point. You've got to build the grid back to it. We're on both sides of that. Sometimes we're building the intermittent power and have plans to build the grid. Look, I like where we sit. I think it's much longer than 2030. I don't know why we put 2030 as the timeframe. Everything stops in 2030, the world's going to end. Look, it's still moving forward. My God. We're well past 2030. Yeah. We track the multi-year utility CapEx budgets, right? Yeah. Just only maybe one or two years ago, you saw those budgets growing at 8%, 9% a year. Now, if you look at least the last quarter, right? These multi-year budgets are growing at + 20%. How do we think about that in the context of when that should translate into an acceleration in Quanta's utility business within electric power? Look, I think we're planning for that, for sure. Today, we see the growth rates in our people and the transmission business. We have a really nice business growing in a normalized way today. That's what it's doing. We have not seen the big project stack on it yet. I think you probably start looking into this year, early next year, start going to construction on some of them. That's going to elongate. It's going to be broad. We've seen these cycles before, big ones, but I think this is bigger than normal. The bigger projects will start to come in in 2027 and really stack on, and you've got five to seven-year builds on just what you see. I think it's going to get bigger than, go longer than that, of course. I do think, after that, we're in early innings on the bigger stuff that would stack on top. Same with our generation. There as well, I think. Okay. Well, since you mentioned transmission, let's jump there. Can you frame up the large transmission opportunity? At least from the projects that we track, there's a pretty big center of gravity in Texas, right? One thing I'm thinking about in Texas is that it's probably a little bit easier from a permitting standpoint to get things done there, maybe a little bit more certainty. I don't know. You tell me. I guess, how do you think through the stacking of those sorts of projects? Yeah. I would tell you, Texas, until you go through the wrong piece of property, it's great. You try to go through the wrong piece of property, it's no fun. Yeah, look, we've got to build infrastructure. I think we're making progress regulatorily. Texas, it will start first, I believe. You're seeing MISO come out with projects that people are winning there. I think they continue to have tranches. There's some backlash on whether they weren't competitive or not. I doubt they'll go backwards, but they may. I think it'll be a blend of both for the regulated utility to stay there, and then they'll have some competitive like they're doing now. It seems to be the way they're going to go, but we'll see. Either way, we're on both sides. It doesn't matter to us. We want to build it. I do see those things moving forward. In order to really facilitate what we're trying to do as a country with the load, we're going to double load in the country. The need for transmission congestion is probably $12 billion-$15 billion a year, somewhere in there, of congestion. It's the cheapest form of energy. We've got to get these lines built, and I think you got to walk it back, and I know I hear a lot about, well, it's only 50% utilized. The national highway system is 35% utilized. You going to get rid of the highways, too? Are you not going to build any more? Look, the transmission system was never meant to be 100%, ever. People go to sleep. Like, something will sleep. You got to sleep a little bit, and when you sleep, the lights go out, everything goes out, everything's quiet, your bill goes way down. It's 50%. It's not ever going to be more than that. That's a fallacy. You've got to have that transmission to get it to load centers. We really need the permitting and the reform and some of the things to help that. You still have a lot at the states. The states got to get behind it. I do think the vertically integrated utilities are probably in a better position in growth. Hopefully, we can do some regulatory things to give both sides of that some ways to grow generation because we need the generation as well. Is there anything that maybe makes you more optimistic on the pace of the build? From a regulatory standpoint, there's a recent acquisition of Dominion by NextEra. Is there anything that kind of makes you look more confident on that? We have a lot of smart people trying to build generation and transmission in the PJM. We got to get some political pressure off and build it in. What I would say, demand is there. The willingness of technology to pay for incremental cost to the ratepayer, drive the ratepayers. Philosophically, under any scenario, more generation, more transmission should equal less to the ratepayer. It just should. There's no reason why we can't do that. It's being done in Indiana. In Indiana, if you look at the model in Indiana, where NiSource is building there, it's $7 a month to the ratepayer deduction because of load in. It can be done. It's easier for the vertical people to do so. Definitely, I think you're going to see scenarios where you're seeing that model get pressed, and so it'll come down. We got to have those kind of things happen in order for us to perpetuate where we want to go as a country, and that demand will allow us to do so. What makes 765 kV so much more complex than 300 kV or 500 kV? Can you talk about just what makes Quanta just well-positioned to win on that part of the cycle? 765 kV is big and heavy. In some parts of the construction, you can go pick a block up with your hand. You got to have a 12-ton crane, and you got to have the block to pick it up, and you got to pull wire across it. It's six-bundle conductor. It's a different level of construction. When you think about it's big. There's a lot of capital that goes into that, a lot of planning that goes into it. For us, you can 25% more right away for six times load. I sign up for that. Very hard to build DC across North America because it doesn't drop load. 765 kV allows you to drop load wherever you want on AC, so you can do it. You don't get as good of quality, but I won't debate that. That's for engineers. It is something that I believe, for a backbone infrastructure, we need it in the country. It'll allow us to really move generation much more economical across large territories. I think it's going to get built. It's been talked about for, I don't know, my career, 20 years. It's always been needed. We just think now the demand's going to press it, and either we're going to build multiple corridors, which I don't think we'll do. We're highly likely to see 765 kV in a meaningful way across North America. Okay. Can you talk about, with this build-out of 765 kV, how that creates follow along spur line opportunities? As we think about over the next 10 years, this is the first wave of building that trunk line. How does that cascade out as you're densifying that network? Yeah. Look, I think of it just like a highway. I always like to go to highway because people understand. You build a 24-lane highway, it comes down to a looper. You have offshoots of it all the way once you get a corridor from point to point. All the lower voltage goes out to feed industrial parks or data center or whatever it may be, but you have to have the trunk line to do so. It's 10 to one normally, is what you see. A big line, you get 10 off of it normally. It takes time, but over time, that's what you'll see. Which just extends the capital build when you think about it, right? You're basically saying this is a 10x multiplier on- Okay. ... on capital over time. If you had a mile of 765 kV, you got 10 of everything else. Wow, okay. I do think when you look at it, we see that. We see them planning to build those things. If you go back, CREZ wasn't 765 kV, but it was 345 kV double circuit. The CREZ lines are at capacity. We had the same debate, should we build it? We also, with the winter storm in Texas, had a huge issue with CREZ. Yeah, we should build it. Look, we have demand outside of data centers, and we have demand with industrials. We have demand across the country with the pharmaceuticals. I can go on and on. Industrial, re-industrialization of North America. It's here, and we got to wake up and start building the infrastructure. Got it. That is actually a good segue to the next question. I want to talk a little bit more about Cupertino and Dynamic too, the recent acquisitions, and just how can Quanta serve large load customers better now versus before? It's just a different discussion. Both of them are fabricating in obviously different disciplines. The engineering, very common, the way we were able to kind of put them together, engineer together, do some things there. I think it's more I don't think we're doing anything different other than scale. We can scale across the lower 48 and into Canada if we need to. That scale of those businesses, we've added Tri-City in there as well. I think we're just able to see more and take on more of where they're at, build offices, build capabilities. We had a nice business that was more, we call it power plant industrial inside about 1,000 electric. We're taking those 1,000 and put them into that framework on the electric side. The mechanical side, I think, as you start to see generation get built from fossil, you'll see heavy mechanical that comes back meaningfully in these type of builds. It gives us just a lot of framework opportunity. We talk about all the time the portfolio and how the labor's fungible. You start to see, okay, neither one of these companies were really data center driven. They were doing all kinds of other things. You can see the fungibility of it. Now you have a generation market coming on that's going to start in a meaningful build on the way, on forward looking. I just think the opportunity for us to expand their capabilities are there, and I like the fact that they're both union and they're working together quite a bit. We're not having issues. Like type people, they're both growing as fast as we can grow them. Really, really great management teams, think alike. Super proud of those acquisitions. Okay. Maybe a question for you on the generation side. If memory serves me correctly, the vast majority of incremental generation has been on the renewable side in the last number of years. How do you see that on a go-forward basis in terms of mix? I know with some of your, I think with NiSource, right, you talked about getting, I guess, back into gas-fired construction, at scale, selectively. Yeah, maybe just kind of map out how you see that cycle playing out in terms of just that mix. Then, how big does Quanta want to be in that cycle? Yeah. That's a good question. The last part. I don't think I have a choice. What I would say, what I see in renewables, and Jayshree can comment, I think she should. You're seeing we're still growing double-digit type growth in our renewable business. Batteries are coming into play. What I'm seeing with batteries is we're seeing longer durations, and I'm seeing them get cheaper. I think Tesla kind of came out with something they believe has been revolutionary. I don't know. I haven't really looked up on it. Apparently, you think Elon can say he can get that thing down in half, maybe, to cost. I don't doubt him. If you can do that and get longer durations, solar becomes very much what I would consider as good as gas generation at times. Why not? I just think, yeah, you're going to have gas generation. We need all forms, by the way. When we see that's there. That's what we're doing today. As we progressed, we were asked to get into the gas power generation. It's not my favorite thing to do. I knew we had the capabilities to do it. It's not my favorite thing to do, and it's very difficult to sync CCGT up. We're getting unit one and two of class, some of the turbines. I know that's difficult, and there's very good people that do that. They're busy. They're beyond busy. The client's asking us to do more there, and we had Abbey that worked with us, that had the capabilities, ran a big engineering division before. We have 300 people in Birmingham today, going to 500 - 600. We're getting the front-end capabilities. We decided to do a joint venture on the first one in Indiana. We're able to do that, de-risk the company through the construct, the way that we did it, while really reducing cost to the client and the ratepayer, the large load customer willing to offset some risk. I think that design is a good design. I think we can continue. The inbounds on building gas power generation are probably every bit as robust as data center or anything else at this point. We can't build them all. We're not going to try. We're going to have clients that we really want to work with that are asking us to do something in a collaborative way, we'll do it. It has to be in a collaborative way that we can work together to de-risk us as well as enhance the ability to come in on time and on budget. We had the craft. I thought early in my career, but we built one in Alaska. That's what taught me into doing it. Man, it was tough. Syncing something at nameplate power is just hard. I know it's hard, and that's why I'm very concerned, and you'll hear me talk about it. How big can we get? We're only going to get as big as we feel comfortable, and that's one of the reasons that we de-risked ourselves with JV, is because that's their main business at times, Zachry's, and they did a really nice job, and I felt like it was a great partnership on where we're at today. Simple cycle is not too worried about. We can build simple cycles. It's not something that's as difficult as syncing them up. Look, lots of opportunity, and I do think it's really important when you think through, because we get questions all the time, "Well, what if renewables go down?" Well, what about our gas generation that we're building that business? Where does it sit? One thing I will say, we have great markets. They're not all going to rise at the same time, and they're not going to stay risen forever. They're going to move up and down, and we'll have things that look great, things that look good, and things that are okay. That's what we want in the portfolio. It allows us to really be flexible, give you long-term guidance, and de-risk the investor base on three different verticals, typically of initiatives is the way the company's moving. Look, if we hit them all at once and jackpot, I guess, I don't know. Look, I don't think you'll hit them all at once instead of going vertical on them. I just think there's going to be fluctuations, and it really gives us longevity in the markets that we see well past 2030. You should comment on renewables. You do a great job on it, but not much more to add. You know this, Chad, I'm clearly a bull on renewables, and I will always be because it makes sense. The cost curve is coming down. There's value to it in many markets, and the power demand is there. We continue to see a really good market there. The technology curves on both those things. I always say, don't ever underestimate technology. Both solar panels and batteries are really technology plays, and it just keeps getting better and better. There is a real need for that as part of the energy mix. In the short term, for sure, because like Duke said, it's very difficult to get a gas plant built in the next five years. There'll be some, the majority of the generation build-out will still be renewables. Even beyond 2030, regardless what the politics might be around the tax credits, it will be about market demand and market drivers. Where there's an energy need and even some capacity need, you're going to have batteries and solar be part of that. Wind is a little different. Wind is more challenged, for sure, onshore wind. It'll still be part of the mix. It just won't be a big growth driver. There's value to wind, actually on both sides of that equation, on the energy and capacity side. There will be markets where, especially as more transmission gets built out, which has been the biggest bottleneck to wind, you'll see more wind coming as well. With solar and batteries will still have a nice growth curve to it. Got it. Okay. How about behind the meter? I know right now, I think, there's a view that it is maybe more of a bridge power solution, go beyond 2030, right? Think about what the grid looks like with that added element. Yeah. I think there's cases that you could make where it makes some sense to have some form of behind-the-meter generation. Look, I think batteries behind the meter are going to be there for sure. There'd be other things, backup generation, of course. Anything they're doing today will at least become backup generation. The question is, can you sell back into the grid? Do you have bi-directional capabilities or not? What can you get out of that? Are we thinking through that well enough now of what can be done later? I do think there's applications for it. It becomes cost at some point. If you can bring on load and you can bring on utility scale, it'll reduce the rate there. You got to think through the cost of something. Right now, it's speed to market. That becomes cost to market over time as you start to get more generation on these systems. There's always a place for it. We're invested in a company called Hybar. They build rebars. We take some off-take off the rebar, green rebar in Arkansas. They have behind-the-meter solar and battery to shape peak. What it does is for the price point of their electricity, we can build and manufacture steel rebar much cheaper because of the way that batteries and solar come into play in the plant. I'm amazed at what that'll do for a company that's pressed on power. That's a situation where you could see behind-the-meter something that works, it works for the utility, and it works for the client too. I don't know. Yeah. That it works great, and it'll be there. Right now, it's just like if you have anything that'll generate an electron, go. I don't think that's going to be that way when you start to see the cycle of gas generation come online. Got it. Okay. Let's actually shift back over to your modular fabrication capabilities. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a recently acquired capability, with Cupertino and Dynamic. What have you learned about this sort of capability, and then how do you think about deploying this at greater scale? If you can you talk about just what share of your work even flows through modular today? Yeah. If you take into account our vertical factories for transformers, you'll have 7 million sq ft under roof with you. We said we're going to spend $700 million in expansion. We're expanding all the factories. That includes MEP fab capabilities. As we look at it today, if you go back 10 years, Cupertino was the first mover in this. It's always been a good market. It's always been a market that we thought was prevalent. In saying that, you didn't have the constraint of the workforce that you do today, and the cost to move people, the cost to move people into other parts of the country. It's much more economical today than it's ever been to modularize because of some constraints on craft skill, and especially the electric side. I think those constraints, you've always modularized some of the mechanical, but it's more prevalent now. I think as you move into rural areas, Wyoming, New Mexico, places like that where there's just nothing, you're much more economic to fabricate. We're seeing more and more of it. Your engineering, your video, your Trimble, all the things that you have capabilities of the 3D modularization, that's really enhanced what you can modularize. It actually fits when it hits the field. I think that's the key is we've advanced technology to a point where you're able to have what I would consider world-class quality at your factory that goes to the field, everything kind of syncs up, and it cuts that time to build down, and it cuts labor down in the field. Yeah, I like it. We'll use it as much as possible. I would tell you it's less than 5% of the business, call it. Yeah, roughly. Mm-hmm. It's growing. Got you. Once it expands too, it'll grow more. The business is also getting bigger, so it's hard for me to characterize it against the business because our business overall continues to grow. Well, now I'm going to have to ask about the economics. Look, there's players in the industry that are pure play. You can look at them and our margins are comparable. Got you. Okay. You spent a number of years working with the utilities through a master service agreement. It kind of beckons the question, with data centers, with the long visibility, to what extent should we expect those sorts of relationships start to unfold, or even on the industrial side? Yeah, I think they are. They're unfolding. We're definitely building them on that side. It's a trust issue in many ways. We got to continue to perform. If we continue to perform over time, it's already happening, where they realize that when we sign up for something, we're going to do it on time and on budget. The more times we do it just keeps building our name. Our best commercial is our customers. I had one the other day. They were talking to one of our larger utility customers, and they had given them our name. It was a large, it wasn't a hyperscaler, it was a large colocator. The utility came back and said, "Hey, they just thanked us for giving them your name." I was like, "Well, yeah, thank you." This thing is very circular. It's a small group, and we just got to perform, I think, and provide the same kind of mindset solutions that we have for utilities on the other side and just not deviate. Yeah. I think we work hard to be long-term, and we work hard to be programmatic with our customers. I believe we've done a nice job of that on the utility side. You're seeing that in our results. We have been working towards that on the technology side. It's absolutely making an impact. It's just we're early in it. It's only been two years since Quanta really has been leaning into the technology side, as a Quanta whole, right? Obviously, our operating unit has done it for a longer period, but within this whole Quanta holistic total solution approach, we've just begun. I believe we're going to see a lot of results of that as our technology customers are seeing the benefits of that. Like Duke said, we got to prove it, because again, they got to trust us to get the work they need to do. We're in the early innings in that. Got you. Okay. On the Investor Day, you guys talked about the $13 million per megawatt TAM for data center. I guess, for the average project that you're working on today, what does that look like, and what would you need to do organically or inorganically to actually realize that full $13 million TAM? I think we look at it, we're between, call it, 25%-50%, in that range, of the way we think through it. It really depends on where it's at. Like regionally, just structurally, there's some regions of the country that we're just not as heavy, and we don't have the capacity in that part of the world. It's a matter of us building capacity in different areas, whether it be mechanical or civil or whatever. The high voltage piece we can cover off. Medium voltage we can cover off. We can take it. You got to think about it. We just started this platform two years ago, and so we're building on this platform that's already big. I think we'll just continue to add to it, add regionality to it, and then really pick the business up where it's more fulsome. I would tell you we're probably averaging 15% now on things, because we're building for others out of our fabrication facilities. We're just doing mechanical on one building versus 10. There's just all kinds of things that we can take more market share, we can think through it, but we'll have top 10 customers there that we're going to service, and we're going to have to be more fulsome to do so. We continue to talk to them years out, decades out, around what we need to do, and we're going to build against it. Okay. Now let's shift over to labor. Can you talk about your strategy to ensure an adequate labor supply over the next three to five years? Then specific to the training program, what do you see as the biggest bottleneck? We've done a nice job since 2009 there, and I do think that continuation's there. I'm not as concerned about the craft skill. I'm concerned, but I'm not as concerned. We have good, what I consider, visibility into growth curves and what we need from a labor curve, so we can see it today. The more that we can get in front and plan with our clients on a forward look, the better off we'll service them. We're encouraging, like, let's have the conversation early. Let's talk about what you want to do, where you want to do it. That moves all the time. We can say we're going to go to Wisconsin, we end up in Iowa. It happens, and that's okay. As long as we have good growth curves with them, we can meet the demands. We're hiring a lot of military. About 25% of our craft comes from the military. I think we owe it to them. Our median wage is $120,000. Kids coming out of the school, $75,000, 25% pension easily, and call it all health and welfare for the same. I just think we can do some unique things. We pay well. We always have. I feel good about it. We've pushed equity down to 9,500 people, between 9,000 and 10,000. We're proud of that as well. We got to take care of them. We got to take care of craft. That's who we are, and our ability to ramp that. Five years ago, we were at 3,000, kind of organically on the growth rate. Last year was 6,000 organically. We added 10, but that was somewhat through acquisition. Journeyman builds journeyman. More journeyman we have, more we can build, which just fluctuates. I feel good about where we can go with craft. Got it. Okay. Maybe just the last minute or so, let's talk through your margin targets, right? You called for an increase out to 2030. Can you just walk through the levers to get there? Since we're running short on time, I wanted to throw something in on return on invested capital. That's like another target for you. Maybe just talk through the building blocks there. Yeah. Look, I think when you look at our margin profile, we're growing it some. You can see the project mix inside the UI. It came up. I think that'll continue as that becomes a bigger piece of the segment. Probably that's the question of the day, margin. Look, we self-perform 85%. We have to pay our craft. Our craft moves up. Okay? We pay them well. It's going to come up. We are going to increase margins a little bit, but that's not the story. We'll take margin, we'll take outward look and longevity and stickiness with clients over time and compound earnings, invest free cash and do great things with it that we've done in the past for a decade. When we give a 10-year, five-year look, we hit it, and we've hit it for a decade. That's the intent, and that's how we do it. We just stay with it. It's not very sexy, but you just compound it over and over again. Our ROIC- The same. It's the same approach, right? Our return, you've seen it grow, because of this consistent, deliberate effort on focusing on the long run. There are levers. You're seeing our working capital profile improve. We believe we're going to continue seeing that. That's going to be a driver of our ROIC. The margin improvements that Duke talked about around some of the areas that we can do around the mix of work and the efficiencies, we're going to continue to gain around those. All of those things are going to help drive our ROIC. We are heavily focused on that, ensuring that at the end of the day, we take on more share of wallet, even if it might be not necessarily margin dilutive, but if we're allowed to take on more scope with less capital, we're going to do so. That's going to be a big driver of our ROIC as well. Got it. Okay. We're out of time, guys. All right. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Thanks, everyone.