Waste Connections, Inc. (WCN) 2026-02-12 Earnings Call Transcript

Hello everyone. Thank you for joining us and welcome to the Waste Connections, Inc. Q4 2025 Earnings Call. After today's prepared remarks, we will host a question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press 1 on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, please press 1 again. I will now hand the call over to Ronald J. Mittelstaedt, President and CEO. Please go ahead, Ron.

Okay. Thank you, Operator, and good morning. I would like to welcome everyone to this conference call to discuss our fourth quarter 2025 results and our outlook for 2026. I am joined this morning by Mary Anne Whitney, our CFO, and several other members of our senior management. As noted in our earnings release, adjusted EBITDA margin expanded by 110 basis points in Q4, capping a strong year for Waste Connections, Inc. driven by price-led organic growth, solid waste, and continued operating improvements. For full year 2025, delivered an industry-leading adjusted EBITDA margin of 33%, up 100 basis points year over year excluding lower commodities. We also completed approximately $330,000,000 of acquired annualized revenue, and returned over $830,000,000 to shareholders through share repurchases and dividends, while preserving flexibility for continued growth and return of capital. Before we get into much more detail, let me turn the call over to Mary Anne for our forward-looking disclaimer and other housekeeping items. Thank you, Ron, and good morning.

The discussion during today's call includes forward-looking statements

made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. Actual results could differ materially from those made in such forward-looking statements due to various risks and uncertainties. Factors that could cause actual results to differ are discussed both in the cautionary statement included in our February 11 earnings release and in greater detail in Waste Connections, Inc.’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the securities commissions or similar regulatory authorities in Canada. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, as there may be additional risks of which we are not presently aware or that we currently believe are immaterial that could have an adverse impact on our business. We make no commitment to revise or update any forward-looking statements in order to reflect events or circumstances that may change after today's date. On the call, we will discuss non-GAAP measures such as adjusted EBITDA, adjusted net income attributable to Waste Connections, Inc. on both a dollar basis and per diluted share, and adjusted free cash flow. Please refer to our earnings releases for a reconciliation of such non-GAAP measures to the most comparable GAAP measures. Management uses certain non-GAAP to evaluate and monitor the ongoing financial performance of our operations. Other companies may calculate these non-GAAP measures differently. I will now turn the call back over to Ron.

Okay. Thank you, Mary Anne. We are extremely proud of our accomplishments in 2025, led by disciplined execution to deliver better-than-expected operating and financial results. For the third consecutive year, employee turnover and safety incident rates declined, exiting 2025 at multiyear lows. In fact, building on a well-established track record for better-than-industry-average performance, in 2025, we reached historic company record levels in safety, our most important and impactful operating value. Moreover, that momentum has continued into January, when safety-related incidents were down almost 20% year over year to another record low. Additionally, we saw multiyear improvement in employee retention, to achieve our 2025 targeted voluntary turnover level of 10%, and we are continuing to raise or, in this case, lower the bar as we see momentum for continued gains. As expected, these ongoing improvements have driven cost savings, productivity gains, and improved customer service. As we had indicated would be the case, we are realizing related reductions in operating costs throughout the P&L, most notably in labor, repairs and maintenance, and most recently, risk management. Moreover, we have seen incremental benefits from pricing retention as a result of enhanced employee retention and customer satisfaction. In fact, solid waste core pricing of 6.5% in 2025 exceeded our original expectations for the full year, further expanding an outsized price-cost spread and contributing to underlying margin expansion of 100 basis points in solid waste. This outperformance enabled us to overcome incremental pressure on reported margins related to a second consecutive year of declines in value for recycled commodities and renewable energy credits associated with landfill gas sales, as well as continued sluggishness in underlying solid waste volumes. Not only did we report our expected adjusted EBITDA margin expansion to an industry-leading 33%, but we did so in spite of recycled commodity values at multiyear lows and without contribution from operations at Chiquita Canyon Landfill, which we closed at the end of 2024. On the subject of Chiquita and the closure-related outlays, we continue to make progress on managing the elevated temperature landfill, or ETLF, event. The technical aspects of that process are moving forward largely as expected, subject to some timing differences on outlays as we have made better-than-expected progress in some areas. On the other hand, the political challenges of resolving this situation continue to exceed our updated expectations primarily because of related regulatory, permitting, legal, consulting, and other unanticipated requirements that have dragged out and inflated an already burdensome and dysfunctional process. As we have indicated previously, to address these regulatory challenges, we have sought out and we welcome the involvement of the U.S. EPA and constructive efforts to streamline processes, remove regulatory impediments, and enable a more effective and efficient response. We are encouraged by recent meetings we have had with top officials at the U.S. EPA about their further engagement at the site. U.S. EPA has indicated they are finalizing next steps to support short- and long-term solutions to assist Chiquita in further mitigating and managing the reaction and streamlining the regulatory oversight at the landfill. Moving next to acquisitions. During 2025, we closed approximately $330,000,000 in annualized revenue from 19 acquisitions, ranging from West Coast franchises to competitive markets, including integrated businesses, new market entries, and a number of tuck-ins to existing operations. Our expected 2026 rollover revenue contribution of approximately $125,000,000 reflects a few additional deals already completed this year and is expected to grow with our active pipeline. As always, we stay selective about the markets we enter and disciplined about the amounts we pay. We would consider any additional deals as upside to our full-year 2026 outlook. Our focus has been and will continue to be solid waste, and we look forward to building on a model that has consistently delivered value creation. Following multiple years of outsized acquisition activity, we remain well positioned for future growth. With leverage of 2.75x debt to EBITDA, our strong balance sheet and free cash flow generation allow for continued investment in acquisitions, along with other opportunities, including growing shareholder returns. To that end, during 2025, we increased our quarterly per share dividend by 11.1% to return a record amount to shareholders, including over $330,000,000 in dividends, and over $500,000,000 in share repurchases. We have taken an opportunistic approach to share buybacks, and intend to continue to do so. We recognize that market sentiment and capital flows may shift over time; that does not change the fundamentals of our business or the durability of our model, which makes buybacks compelling in the current environment. Additionally, we are reinvesting in the business and positioning ourselves for further growth and value creation through both sustainability-related projects and artificial intelligence, or AI, technology-driven initiatives. Looking first at sustainability. We continue to make progress developing our portfolio of renewable gas, or RNG, facilities, including five already online, with the remainder expected to be operational around year-end. We have also broken ground on an additional state-of-the-art recycling facility expected online in 2027. Looking next to AI and our multiyear rollout, which began in 2025, these investments are aimed at enhancing efficiency and boosting productivity by further digitizing and automating our operations and improving forecasting through data analytics. At the same time, we are focused on service and customer experience for improved transparency and mobile connectivity. What is exciting is that we are just getting started. We are already seeing positive outcomes as we expand the utilization of AI and data analytics across multiple platforms. For instance, we have enhanced our dynamic routing platform to further optimize asset utilization performance. Promising early indications show direct and indirect benefits beyond cost reductions ranging from improvements in safety and employee engagement to enhanced customer satisfaction and retention. We are excited to build upon these efforts as we deploy additional applications and expand our development in 2026 and 2027. I will now turn the call over to Mary Anne to review more in-depth the financial highlights of the fourth quarter, as well as provide a detailed outlook for the full year 2026. I will then wrap up before heading into Q&A.

Thank you, Ron. In the fourth quarter, we delivered revenue of $2,373,000,000. Acquisitions completed since the year-ago period contributed about $58,000,000 of revenue in Q4, net of divestitures, bringing full-year net acquisition contribution to $377,000,000. Q4 pricing accelerated sequentially to 6.4% and ranged from about 3.7% in our mostly exclusive market Western region to over 7% in our competitive markets. Reported volume down 2.7% was in line with prior quarters and continued to reflect the combined impact of intentional shedding, price-volume trade-off, and ongoing weakness in the more cyclically driven elements of the business. Looking at year-over-year results in the fourth quarter on a same-store basis, roll-off pulls were down 2%, and total landfill tons were up 3%. On MSW and special waste both up 4%, while construction and demolition debris, or C&D, was down 4%. For the full year, C&D tons were down 5% year over year, bringing tons down about 15% from 2023. Special waste, on the other hand, was up 7% for the full year 2025 following declines in two of the last three years. And finally, full year 2025 MSW tons were up 3%, in part as a result of our purposeful increase in internalization in the Northeast and in certain Texas markets. We are encouraged by the consistency of results in 2025 and macro indicators that suggest improving underlying dynamics in the broader economy, but have not factored in a material pickup in our expectations for 2026. Adjusted EBITDA for Q4, as reconciled in our earnings release, was up 8.7% year over year to $796,000,000 or 33.5% of revenue, up 110 basis points year over year. In Q4, we lapped the initial wind-down of operations at Chiquita Canyon Landfill, as well as the toughest year-over-year commodity comparisons, both of which had masked the strength of underlying margin expansion on a reported basis. As anticipated, the outsized benefits from operational improvements that had been contributing all year were more visible in Q4. Along those lines, we were encouraged to see benefit from risk management costs which up until Q4 had been a headwind to reported results. Looking at the full year 2025, adjusted EBITDA of $3,125,000,000 was up 7.7% year over year, with adjusted EBITDA margin of 33%, up 50 basis points. Normalizing for Chiquita and lower commodities, the adjusted EBITDA margin exceeded 33.6%, as expected. Moving next to adjusted free cash flow. Our 2025 adjusted free cash flow of $1,260,000,000 was largely in line with our expectations and reflects underlying conversion of adjusted EBITDA of approximately 50%. Strength of our free cash flow generation largely overcame higher-than-expected cash flow impacts from Chiquita, which totaled approximately $200,000,000. Capital expenditures of $1,194,000,000 were in line with our expectations, including RNG projects spend of about $100,000,000. Our RNG spend for the projects noted will be completed in 2026, and Chiquita outlays are expected to step down, setting up higher free cash flow conversion which has been factored into our 2026 outlook, which I will now review. Before I do, we would like to remind everyone once again that actual results may vary significantly based on risks and uncertainties outlined in our safe harbor statement and filings we have made with the SEC and the securities commissions or similar regulatory authorities in Canada. We encourage investors to review these factors carefully. Our outlook assumes no change in the current economic environment. Our outlook also excludes any impact from additional acquisitions that may close during the remainder of the year and expensing of transactions-related items during the period. Revenue in 2026 is estimated in the range of $9,900,000,000 to $9,950,000,000. For solid waste collection, hauling, and disposal, we expect organic growth in the range of 3.5% to 4%, driven by core pricing of 5% to 5.5%, with expected yield of approximately 4% implying volumes flat to down about half a percentage point. Acquisition revenue contribution of about $125,000,000 reflects deals closed to date. Commodity-related revenue reflects recent values, and E&P waste revenues are expected to be flattish year over year. On that basis, adjusted EBITDA in 2026, as reconciled in our earnings release, is expected in the range of $3,300,000,000 to $3,325,000,000. Adjusted EBITDA margin in the range of 33.3% to 33.4%, up 30 to 40 basis points year over year, reflects the commodity-related drag of 20 to 30 basis points. As noted, incremental acquisition activity, any improvement in the underlying economy, or increase in commodities would provide upside to our 2026 outlook. Depreciation and amortization expense in 2026 is estimated at about 13.1% of revenue, including amortization of intangibles of about $195,000,000 or $0.57 per diluted share net of taxes. Interest expense is estimated at approximately $330,000,000 and our effective tax rate for 2026 is estimated to be approximately 24.5% with some quarterly variability. Adjusted free cash flow in 2026, as reconciled in our earnings release, is expected to increase by double-digit percentages to a range of $1,400,000,000 to $1,450,000,000. CapEx estimated at $1,250,000,000 includes an aggregate of about $100,000,000 for RNG and recycling projects. And our adjusted free cash flow outlook also reflects $100,000,000 to $150,000,000 impact from closure-related outlays at Chiquita Canyon. Normalizing for both non-core impacts, 2026 adjusted free cash flow reflects conversion of approximately 50% of EBITDA or approximately $1,700,000,000. While not providing specific expectations for revenue and EBITDA by quarter, we would offer the following high-level

framework.

For solid waste, we would expect a typical seasonal cadence and related margin progression in 2026, keeping in mind the recent outsized weather events across several geographies impacting Q1. Looking specifically at Q4, we would note the toughest year-over-year

comparison.

given our outperformance in 2025. And finally, for recycled commodities, a reminder that the toughest comparison would be in the first half of the year.

Thank you, Mary Anne. Coming into 2025, we emphasized excellence with humility, recognizing our ongoing commitment to a proven strategy for delivering industry-leading results while acknowledging the benefits of new ideas, innovation, and technology. We are excited about our progress in 2025 and the momentum in 2026 for another year of outsized solid waste margin expansion, along with double-digit adjusted free cash flow growth. Moreover, we are positioned for upside from any pickup in the economy or commodities as well as additional acquisitions. We are excited to win from within in 2026 and are grateful for the dedication of our 25,000 employees who set us apart by putting our values into action every day. We also appreciate your time today. I will now turn this call over to the Operator to open up the lines for your questions. Operator?

Thank you, Ron. We will now begin the question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press 1 on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, please press 1 again. Please pick up your handset when asking a question. If you are muted locally, please remember to unmute your device. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Your first question comes from the line of Sabahat Khan with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Great. Thanks, and good morning. Maybe just starting with, Mary Anne, the free cash flow commentary that you shared.

Wondering if you can just delve a little bit more into sort of the sustainability CapEx, where that is going? And then just on the Chiquita as well, it sounds like $100 to $150. If you can just talk about the cadence of that spend, and then more importantly, as we think about free cash conversion in this year into 2027, just how should we directionally expect those two incremental amounts to evolve through 2026 and more so into 2027? Thanks.

Sure. Well, high level, to be clear, we would expect them both to step down 2026 to 2027. So first of all, in terms of sustainability-related outlays, the $100,000,000 includes the final $75,000,000 that we have been talking about for the large slug, that dozen or so RNG facilities, which, as Ron mentioned in his remarks, almost half of which are online, the balance are expected by around year-end. So that is done there. And then the incremental $25,000,000 that we mentioned is part of our efforts longer term, as we have described, to really de-risk recycle, take advantage of the incremental technology that provides benefits as a set of de-risking, reducing our cost to third parties, and also improving the quality of the recyclables coming. So that is just, you should think of that as there is this opportunity. It is a little out slug. We are always spending a little, but it is part of the $100,000,000 this year. And, again, I would not say that repeats going forward. With respect to Chiquita Canyon outlays, as we described, some of what was the outlays in 2025 reflect getting more done than we had anticipated. So there is some of that that continues to decrease as we move through that process. And then there are other pieces that we had not expected, the pace or the type of outlays that we are seeing. And so we certainly, when you say the cadence during the year, I would not put too much premium on how quickly those outlays are, just as you know CapEx and free cash flow in general is always lumpy during the course of the year. So I would encourage you to just think about it in totality for 2026.

Great. Thanks for that. And then maybe just stepping back on the broader guidance. I think the commentary indicates not a lot of, you know, not a lot of aggressive assumptions at least on the macro and the commodity prices. Maybe you can just share some thoughts around sort of what you baked in terms of the macro environment. You know, we are hearing some commentary on some of the sector calls around green shoots. If you can just comment on where you see potential sources of upside, whether that is on maybe the cyclical volumes getting a little bit better, whether that is maybe another above-average year of M&A. Just what have you baked in, and where do you think upside could come from if there is for the rest of the year? Thanks.

Sure. So as we have said, I mean, I would say there are three key things that we have not baked in. One is any improvement in commodity values. And so you see that headwind over the course of the year, which, as I noted in terms of quarterly cadence, is strongest. So the largest headwinds are a lot like Q4 when it was 40 basis points headwind. That is how to think about the first half of the year, and then those abate just as comps get easier. So to the extent that there is any pickup in commodity values, you would see a benefit there. Next, you heard us talk about, you know, with yield of about 4% that volumes are kind of in that flat to down half a point. That is not materially different from what we have been seeing in terms of that piece of the business that is the more cyclically exposed where you have had lower roll-off and C&D tons. And so to the extent that those improve or that there is incremental improvement in special waste, which we described being up year over year, that would be incremental. And we certainly agree with the characterization that others have made about green shoots in the economy, you know, from certain macro indicators. You know, we would point to, within our business, seeing the special waste pipeline firming. I would note that Q4 is our fifth consecutive quarter of improvement. And I look at the recent trends just in January and weekly trends. I continue to see those up in the most recent weeks. Next, commercial service increases are outpacing decreases with overall net new business up. That is encouraging. And while C&D is still down over the year, we have seen the declines moderating. You look back earlier in the year in Q2, we were down about 9% year over year, and we exited the year down more like 3.5% to 4%. So no improvement overall is factored in there. And then the final piece you asked about was M&A, and I will turn it to Ron. But, of course, as is our approach, we do not bake expected M&A into our outlook. What we have provided you are deals that have already closed.

Yeah. And, Sabahat, I would say that, you know, when we, at the third quarter call, I think we had reported that we had closed about $250,000,000 by then, that we expected to close some $75,000,000 to $100,000,000 thereabouts. You see we closed about another $80,000,000. That brought that number to $330. In fact, today, we have closed, and last week, closed about another $20,000,000 of that. So that brings you right to that $100,000,000 that we talked about that was out there that could occur during the fourth quarter or the very beginning of the year. So that has occurred. So there is no real change to M&A. As Mary Anne said, look. You know, I know you have not followed the space forever, Sabahat, but if you go back, there is a pattern by multiple companies within the space that tend to go out and put out guidance at the beginning of the year and make all kinds of improvement assumptions in the economy and then come back around in the third quarter or the fourth and back all those off. We do not believe that is a prudent way of providing guidance. We are providing guidance with what is known today assuming it does not improve, and if it does improve, it will be upside. So we just think that is a more conservative approach. Not saying there is anything wrong with the other approach, but this is a very consistent pattern for us, and actually for others in the space taking the approach they have.

Great. Thanks so much for the color.

Your next question comes from the line of Tami Zakaria with JPMorgan. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good morning. Thank you so much. I think your pricing is moderating versus last year as some of the cost pressures are also waning. I was curious, could you elaborate on which buckets of expenses you are seeing moderation in and you believe are sustainably trending downward for the next few years?

Yeah. Tami, I mean, number one, you are correct. Price is moderating, and that is a good thing. We are happy about that. Remember, we do not always focus on the ultimate amount of the dollar amount or percentage of the price increase. We try to focus on maintaining the spread of, you know, 150 to 200 basis points spread to what we believe our cost is going up. So if you look at our guidance for price, core price of that 5% to 5.5% and say that is 100 basis points down from 2025, it would indicate to you that we believe our cost is down about 100 basis points relative to 2025 on an increased basis, and it is. You know, we began 2025 with labor rates approaching 5% year over year, and we exit Q4 with labor rates up about 3.9% year over year, and trending down towards 3% to 3.5% throughout 2026. We had other costs within the P&L in 2025 that began the year probably closer to 4.5% and moved throughout the year closer to up more in that 2.5% to 3%. So it is just about the spread. We look forward to not having to put as much dollar amount or percentage rate increase on our customers. They are feeling the same effects from the economy as everyone else. But if the spread has maintained the same, or approximately the same, then that is what we focus on.

Understood. That is very helpful. And I think we love hearing about all the tech and AI investments you are making to improve the efficiency in your business. Any exciting initiatives you want to call out specifically that are due for implementation this year that we can look forward to?

Well, yes, there are. And, you know, we are actually excited about them too. Whoever thought in an old-line industrial waste company that, you know, we would understand what AI even was. But this year, we are focused heavily on two incremental initiatives of seven that we have agreed to do between 2025-2027. This year’s two are moving the company into more of a dynamic, real-time customer routing opportunity. We have very good routing today, but it is what I call static. It has no ability to read incoming data. So you run the route sort of the night before or the week before. Where we are moving to is sort of a real-time routing that takes into effect things just like I have said on another call would be like Waze for your car. It takes in road closures. It takes in traffic conditions. It takes in third-party data feeds to allow us to react real time and resequence with the utilization of AI doing the resequencing, not somebody doing it in another way. So that is one. And the second one is we are developing a dramatically more robust mobile connectivity platform and working towards trying to eliminate inbound calls to our customer service groups locally by as much as, you know, 30% to 50% over a multiyear period. You know, we take over 1,500,000 calls from customers per month right now. And our objective is to get that down somewhere between, you know, 700,000 and 1,000,000 over the next couple of years by being able to push out information mobily to customers for the five to six most common things. We know what the five to six most common things customers are asking, and it is mostly because they are not receiving that information in real time, such as, you know, I think your driver did not pick me up today because he usually picks me up between 7 and 8 a.m., and in reality, he is going to pick them up that day, but the road has been closed due to snow. And so we are able to push out. They are able to see when their driver will arrive and where their driver is on their route, much like you do with your Uber if you order an Uber today. You know where they are and how far away they are. Those kinds of things are dramatic changes in efficiency and service quality for us. So those are two things that we are working to bring online in 2026.

Very exciting. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Noah Duke Kaye with Oppenheimer & Co. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hey. Good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. You know, Ron, in years past on M&A, you have talked about potential for an out year. How do you

assess, based on the pipeline, the potential coming into this year?

And then on

the same subject of capital allocation,

you said you will be opportunistic with the buybacks, but just given where the stock price and the valuation sit today, how opportunistic are you being here to start the year?

Well, let us tackle the first part of that, which was your M&A question. Look. As you know, M&A can be lumpy. We have had three very strong years in a row. No reason to expect that 2026 looks any different. There is nothing that has changed in the underlying opportunity basket. Nothing has changed in our appetite to complete deals or our ability to complete deals or our financial flexibility. So, you know, I think it is very fair that you and others, we should expect, you know, another sort of out year. Now how much of an outsized relative to a normal $150,000,000 to $200,000,000 year? You know, the year needs to play out to see that. But I think, hopefully, you look back at the last three years’ track record and we are not seeing something that would make us think that this year looks different. And we certainly have the capacity, as we said in our script, to do both whatever comes along at M&A and as much buyback and, you know, return of capital as we think is prudent based on the fundamentals of our business and what is driving those opportunities in the buyback. So we do not see any limitations on any of those. As far as, you know, every now and then, you pointed out that a larger deal comes along. And, you know, we looked at several things that we did not pursue or were not successful on in 2025, and we had one of those in 2024, had one of those in 2023. I mean, certainly, there is a good chance that happens in 2026. But we do not bank on any of that or forecast any of that, because that just leads to overpaying and pushing to do something that you might not otherwise have done. So we continue to look at everything and be very active. But we are going to continue to be very disciplined in our approach to what we think is a quality asset for, you know, long-term value creation.

Very helpful.

We can table the buybacks until we see your results, I guess. I really want to get after, because I think it is just so important for a lot of investors, you know, the underlying free cash flow conversion becoming the headline free cash flow conversion. You know, to be doing 50% underlying is really impressive. So on these moving pieces, the sustainability CapEx, you know, and Chiquita. I guess with sustainability CapEx, you know, is 2026 really kind of the last big slug that you envision and we go from $100,000,000 down to, you know, almost nothing on RNG in 2027? Is that the right way to think about it? And then on Chiquita, you know, I guess just-yeah. Go ahead. I just built the last one on Chiquita is really

Go ahead. Ask the Chiquita, and we will answer you both. No problem.

Thank you for your patience. I think just to help us understand kind of your level of confidence that 2026 is really kind of the last big chunk of spend there. Maybe help us understand a little bit better how it has played out and why that might be the case and, you know, where, pending any, you know, big regulatory change, you could see this kind of winding down to in 2027.

Sure. Okay. Well, let us address the-you made a comment about the buyback. First off, look. We do not communicate at any time, whatever the stock price is, what our intentions are. We have, obviously, our view of underlying fundamental value that we are running at all times. And we are going to be active. That is what I can tell you. And so I think that speaks for itself. You saw what we did in the third and the fourth quarters when there was dislocation. On RNG, there is actually a two-point inflection that you need to think about here for this conversion moving back. And you are right. 50% is impressive, but I would remind we have been as high as 53-54% at one point in time. So getting back to 50% for us is actually very average of where we have been. But next year in 2027, you lose the CapEx that has been associated with this RNG, these 12 projects, and you now begin most of the full contribution of the EBITDA and free cash flow. So it is sort of a double whammy for 2027 in that vein.

Now

will there be incremental RNG or sustainability in future years? Well, certainly, there could be. But that would be for new projects that represent incremental cash flow and growth opportunities, not related to the 12 original and the three to four big recycling facilities we have talked about. That piece will be done this year. We expected the outlay for RNG to be done in 2025, but the reality is we do not control all the timing on that outlay because of the permitting and the local utility interconnect that we have to respond to. And I think you are seeing that in everybody’s RNG, that it is taking a little longer to get online than original thoughts. But we are very confident in that $100,000,000, to answer your question, being done in 2026 and then the contribution being there for 2027 in the EBITDA and cash flow. Next to Chiquita. Look. What I would tell you is this. First off, I think you and other investors need to think through this this way. First off, an ETLF is nothing new in this industry. There are 10 to 15 going on right now across the U.S. in many states. Your large public companies have between three and five each going on today, that were going on last year, that were going on the year before.

The difference is

they do not have them in California. If this had happened in 49 other states, you and no one else would have ever known about it, which is why you do not know about the other 10 to 15 occurring. They are not in California. One is by one of our large competitors, but be thankful for them it is not in Los Angeles County.

It is adjacent.

The reason the EPA is involved at our request is because they are having an extremely difficult time understanding the dysfunctionality of California’s inability to resolve its own regulations. That is the issue. Okay? And so what we know is-your question was, is 2026 the last year of outlay for Chiquita and how confident? What we are confident is this is stepping down and continues to step down, and will step down fairly meaningfully in 2026 as the year goes on because of the involvement and the streamlining of what is coming along. Will there be some in 2027? Yes. But it will be quite lower again than 2026. So we should begin to approach those approximate 50% conversion levels as we come through 2027. Okay. So we cannot sit here and tell you will it be exactly that in 2027, without knowing where we will end with things on Chiquita in 2026? No. But all those things are triangulating to that direction.

Ron, thanks so much for the thoughtful

I will turn it over.

Your next question comes from the line of Jerry Revich with Wells Fargo. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Yes. Hi. Good morning, everyone.

Good morning, Jerry. Ron, I am wondering-hi. Ron, I am wondering if you could just give us an update on how the Northeast rail corridor buildout is going. Update us if you do not mind on your expectations on shipments over the course of this year and the densification on the collection side as well. Where do we stand on that initiative? Sure, Jerry. And I think most

of you, what you are referring to is where we are in our Arrowhead Landfill in Alabama and our intermodal facilities along the Eastern Seaboard in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey, New York. Again, to remind everybody, in August 2023, when we acquired this network, it was doing about 2,300 to 2,500 tons a day through the network into the landfill. We are now doing, you know, 7,500 tons a day sort of at the peak period. We have built out incremental rail, storage, and track capacity in our New York, New Jersey intermodal facility. We have incremental track buildout that we must do at our Arrowhead Landfill, which we are in the process of. We believe as we come through 2026 we will be in the 9,000 to 9,500 tons a day into our Arrowhead Landfill. So we are basically almost-not quite-almost quadrupling what was there two and a half years ago right now. So I would tell you that I think that is going fairly well. As is our continued densification, to use your word, in the Northeast. We did multiple tuck-ins in our New York franchise market area in 2025. We acquired at the end of the year a large transfer station as well in New York in Queens. We acquired a large recycling facility in Hoboken in 2025. So we have, I would say, put a lot of effort into building sort of our leading position, certainly at least in the New York City metro area. So I would tell you overall, Jerry, that continues to be a focus and continues to be opportunity there. But we have made good headway.

And, Jerry, the only thing I would add to Ron’s remarks would be just to clarify that where you have seen that increase in activity at Arrowhead, as we have talked about throughout 2025, it is really from internal tons as opposed to incremental third-party tons, and we had seen that as an opportunity. So two things. You see that in our internalization rates, which I mentioned in the prepared remarks, which are now up to almost 60%. And secondly, you see it in margin contributions, and you see the outsized margin performance in 2025. Decreased third-party disposal was a component of that. And that is really the impact of Arrowhead.

Okay. Super. Appreciate the update. And then can we shift gears and talk about-just to expand on the landfill gas part of the conversation? So in terms of the timing getting pushed out, obviously, everybody is working

through that, so that is clear. What we are seeing from some others is the initial plant ramp-up and productivity and profitability has generally been lower for a number of operations. Can you just talk about how that is going for your plants that are coming online versus initial expectations in terms of efficiency rates and profitability ramp based on what is the most recent vintage that has come online?

Sure. Well, Jerry, I would say that your characterization that others are experiencing are very similar to ours in many ways. Look. These things are taking a little longer to get online due to mostly permitting and startup issues. But they get there. We get them there as a company and as an industry. There is multi-months, if not up to a year, to work out and get the flow accurate and really work through the startup issues of the plant. So you probably start up at somewhere maybe in a 40% to 50% efficiency, and you work up over time to, you know, approaching 100%. You are not at 100% efficiency till, you know, well after a year plus being online and getting your flows increased and everything dialed in. So the ramp is somewhat slow. Of course, profitability is affected by both revenue values. And as you know, RINs have come off a high of, you know, $3.40ish down to, you know, a low of two and now in that $2.40ish range. So, you know, they are down a third, and that certainly has an impact depending on your structure of the RNG ownership.

Facility.

As you know, we and most others have sort of one of three types of a structure: fully owned, to some sort of hybrid, to a royalty arrangement. And it also is affected by inputs on the cost side, such as the cost of electricity. And, of course, that has had some waxing and waning. So I would tell you that the returns, while lower than probably-and certainly when run at $3.00 and $3.25-are still very good, extremely good returns at the, you know, $2.20 to $2.50 range on a RIN value and current electricity costs. Not as great as they were at a higher commodity value, but still very attractive and well worth the investment that we are making.

And, Jerry, when we look at our full-year outlook, we did not assume that facilities were necessarily contributing. They may have an incremental cost during the course of the year, or that they were going through testing. And as Ron described, at these lower run rates or efficiency rates there would be upside to the extent that moves along more quickly. And then, of course, any improvement in RINs as well would be upside to our guidance.

Yeah. And to give you an example, Jerry, a real-life example, I mean, we have one of the largest-we have the largest facility in Canada outside of Montreal that we have owned a long time. It is very effective. We started another one. It was supposed to be online in April 2025. It came online in December 2025, and it only began running at sort of close to full capacity in the last couple of weeks. So, you know, they can take a little longer, but they definitely-the performance is still attractive.

I appreciate the discussion. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of James Joseph Schumm with TD Cowen. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hey. Good morning. Thanks for taking the questions.

I have a multipart question on Chiquita. Last quarter, you gave daily leachate production figures and how that was dropping. Can you update us there, and is it fair to assume that leachate costs make up, I do not know, 50% to 60% of your total Chiquita spend? And then also, what is the cost per gallon for disposal there? And do you see any opportunity to lower that cost with evaporation or any other potential help from the EPA. So, James, I will give you some high-level stuff on this because a lot of this changes fluidly quite frequently. But at the peak of the reaction, we believe the peak was somewhere between June and August 2024, we were generating as much as 400,000 gallons of leachate per day. As of the end of the fourth quarter, we were generating most days between 200,000 and 225,000 gallons. So that number, as you can see, is at least from the peak, down approaching 50%. We have other things such as wellhead temperatures that are cooling. So we have every reason to believe that the statistics point to that we are on the downward slope or the backside of the curve of the slope of the reaction as it is starting to cool and wane. What the slope of that trajectory line is, obviously, it is too early to tell. But the indicators are that we are over the hump and on the other side. So that is number one. You know, the cost per gallon varies. It can be as low as about $0.50 to $0.60 to as high as $1.50 to $2.50 depending on what treatment facilities are available and what constituents they can take. Some facilities cannot take various things that are within leachate. And so you have to transport further to a more complex treatment facility. And, yes, to answer your question, I would say that the leachate treatment is not 50% to 60%, but I would characterize it more as about 40% to 45% of the cost. Certainly, the large majority. And then lastly, I would tell you that, you know, I am not sure that evaporation is necessarily going to happen. This still resides within the state of California. But it is interesting you bring that up. Had a large one of these going on in Nevada right now, there you can purchase acreage and go out and aerate this in the desert for $0.02 a gallon. So it is quite interesting how one state handles this compared to a state like California. So I doubt we will get to evaporation. But, yes, we do believe that the involvement of the EPA can lead to some streamlining of treatment facility opportunities, and that ultimately leads to a more cost-efficient process. That is great. Thanks for all that detail, Ron. And then maybe just moving to Seneca Meadows. Can you provide an update there? You know, I think you guys had said you are pretty confident that this moves forward, but I do not think we have gotten resolution on that yet. And, you know, I was just curious if that landfill were forced to close, what kind of impact would that have on your EBITDA? Well, first off, two very good questions. Two-part. Hopefully, you know, both things we are going to answer here give you some comfort in this. First off, we absolutely do believe that that expansion will go forward. That is expected to happen here over the course of the next several months. We are in the technical review piece of the expansion with the state. And generally in the state of New York and other states, the technical review is really what the design, the final design, and contours will be relative to whether it is a go or no go. The go or no go is a separate process, and that has effectively been decided in our favor. So we have a very high degree of confidence that Seneca will succeed in its expansion and go forward.

But

in order to have enough airspace to honor our commitments, we have been throttling back volumes consciously at Seneca, our choice, over the last 18 months. And we have taken that to other landfills that we own throughout our network both in New York and Pennsylvania, and some to our Arrowhead network that we mentioned earlier, intermodal. We have also had to push out some third party to do that. And so, you know, we have overcome that as well in our results. But to answer your question, I would tell you that if Seneca were to close, as you said, if that is a worst-case scenario, the impact to us is far less than what we absorbed at Chiquita closing. So without laying it, it is far less, and you have seen us overcome the impact to EBITDA, revenue, and margin of Chiquita, and this would be far less. So it would be something I am not even sure you would

notice.

Okay. That is great color, Ron. Thank you very much for that.

Your next question comes from the line of Adam Bubes with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. I think the outlook implies an improvement in the rate of change of volumes 150 basis points at least on an apples-to-apples basis with how you traditionally report. And it does not sound like that embeds macro improvements. So what are some of the moving pieces driving the rate of change improvement in volumes year over year?

Sure. As we have talked about volumes historically, the way we have communicated it, you had what we would characterize as that price-volume trade-off, or I would argue there is a piece of mix in there and churn. Also talked about shedding, and then we talked about the underlying economy. That price-volume trade-off, you know, the way we are communicating it, is embodied in the yield calculation just the same way our peers do. And so I would say that has not moved materially, although we look forward to seeing certainly the churn element of that continue to decline as we use better tools. And we have talked about the visibility we have there with our price increases. So then, you know, I would observe that the shedding has decreased. We talked about anniversarying one of those last contracts last year in Q4, so that is behind us. So I would expect that to be more de minimis. And then as we said, we still expect that there is some from those more cyclically driven pieces of the business. That is why we said maybe that is flat to down about half a point. That is essentially what you are seeing there. And, again, that does not mean that things are getting better. It is just that we are anniversarying these low rates and the comps are easier. And as we have said, we have already seen some pickup in special waste, and we are continuing to see our pipeline, our visibility on special waste projects improve. Again, no macro pickup. That is all upside.

And then, Ron, you talked about the technology initiatives, specifically the real-time routing sounds really interesting. It sounds like you are in the early innings, but to what extent is that rolled out across the fleet today? And what type of initial savings or productivity are you seeing?

That is not yet rolled out to the fleet today, Adam, so it would be misleading to tell you that it is, and what we think those savings will be. We have beta-tested what we have done in, you know, probably what would equate to maybe up to 5% of our locations, but not at all of the routes on those 5%. So that is a smaller test. But I do expect that we will have this rolled out fairly broadly by the third and fourth quarter of this year, and then really more fully deployed throughout 2027, but have a good understanding of the potential impact in the second half of this year at some point.

Great. Thanks so much.

Your next question comes from the line of Christopher Allan Murray with ATB Capital Markets. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Yeah. Thanks, folks. Good morning.

When we start looking at at least what you are proposing to see in 2026. Maybe turning back to, you know, the margin expansion that you saw in Q4. But, Ron, I mean, you alluded to the fact that a lot of this was

you know, attributable to, you know, there is some price-cost spread

gains, but it was also kind of the underlying

improvement in things like turnover and risk

You know,

thinking that that stuff is not going to change, can you just maybe kind of square the circle on why you would not think that those trends would extend a little bit more into the year, and you are kind of looking at a lower year-over-year kind of growth rate?

Sure. So I guess what you are referring to is that we have guided to 70 basis points at the high end of underlying margin expansion after exiting the year at, you know-which, by the way, is about what we have seen through the course of the year-and then exiting the year at over 100 basis points margin expansion. And I would say that we recognize that the trends are still in the right direction, so there is certainly continued opportunity, and we factored that into our expectations for what we would characterize as an above-average margin expansion. From that price-cost spread, driven in part, as you note, by the employee retention and safety-driven benefits. Just remember, we had talked about about 100 basis points of margin expansion coming from that improvement over a multiyear period, and we are really two years through that multiyear period, and we mentioned that the final piece, the risk, is the largest contributor in the final pieces. So it is just an acknowledgment that as those metrics continue to improve, we look forward to seeing continued opportunity. Obviously, it gets harder the further down you go with improving these numbers and hitting record lows. But we will certainly look forward to continuing to drive those savings. And, Chris, I also think in terms of pricing retention and the improvement in churn that we have already seen from our pricing tools. So I think there is opportunity, which is why we are guiding to 50 to 70 basis points of underlying margin expansion when, as you know, that number would historically or typically be 20 to 40 in February.

Fair enough. Other quick one just for me. The Canadian government changed its

or is introducing new regulations around methane emissions for landfills. Just wondering if you guys have any thoughts on how that could impact

the Canadian landscape, either creating some opportunities or some costs for you, and how you think that will actually impact the industry over the next few years?

Yeah. I would tell you

Chris, that it is probably too early for us to make any real educated response to that. But I can tell you in speaking with our Canadian leadership team-we were just in Canada this week at our Canadian region office on Monday and Tuesday-and it was not something they were concerned about, based on everything they understood at this point.

Okay. I will leave it there. Thanks, folks.

Your next question comes from the line of John Trevor Romeo with William Blair. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Thanks a lot for taking my questions. Just a couple of quick ones for me. I think first on the E&P business, would love to know, if you could kind of talk about in the quarter, I think you had some M&A deals contributing, but maybe talk about your organic growth you saw in Q4. And then as you think about modeling E&P for 2026, I think, Mary Anne, you said maybe flattish for the year. If you could talk about what you are expecting in U.S. versus Canada, is there anything to call out on a seasonal basis or anything else on that topic?

Sure. So looking at Q4, I would say we outperformed in Q4. That is the seasonally weakest quarter, and what we saw was some benefits in the U.S. from some remediation work, which, you know, that is episodic or lumpy, and so that was a nice add. And we saw continued outperformance in Canada. So both of those markets, even normalizing for acquisitions, were up year over year, and that is in spite of lower rig count and lower values for crude. So I would say that the business is arguably outperforming sort of the macro environment, and I think that the concerns that have been expressed looking forward, you know, we are certainly mindful, but we have seen no indication of a slowdown. And as I said, you know, we think in terms of how the year plays out at this point, we would say flattish is the right way to think about it and let it be upside, because, again, things like remediation jobs, those do not necessarily repeat every quarter. And so that is kind of the approach to the business. But generally speaking, very pleased that, as we have said before, the thesis on the Canadian business being more production-oriented played out last year, and our expectation is it continues to play out with the steadiness, the projectability of that business, which has not shown any signs of change.

That is great. Thank you. That is it for-

Sorry. You are cutting out.

Cutting out. We could not hear you, Trevor.

Hello? Hi, is this-

No. It is not better.

No. It is not better.

I apologize if you cannot hear me. I guess you missed-

Your next question comes from the line of Bryan Nicholas Burgmeier with BNP. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking

the question. Can you hear me okay?

Yes. Loud and clear.

Okay.

Oh, great.

Just going back to the RNG business. Sorry if I missed it. But is

$100,000,000 of EBITDA still kind of the right way to think about the contribution for 2027 or run rate

once that is fully operational? Is that still a good number to talk to?

Yeah. You know, I think that is a fair way to think about it based on what we know right now, and I would just remind you that there’s, you know, almost half of the projects are online. And so the incremental contribution would be what remains after that.

Sorry. So you mean half the projects are online

today?

And so the

year-over-year 2027 versus 2026 will not be $100,000,000? Is that what you are saying?

Correct.

Yes.

Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

But $100,000,000 in aggregate is the right way to think about

the return on that overall investment.

That is right. Maybe a little higher. $100,000,000-$120,000,000, something like that.

Okay. Thanks.

And then just lastly, I think in prior calls, you called out Florida and Texas as being kind of weak or softer end markets. Is that still the case? Are you seeing-and then kind of related to that, did you see any weather impact in the quarter just broadly around some of the cold snap and stuff like that?

In the fourth quarter, are you referring to, or in the quarter we are now sitting in? We really did not see any weather impact in the fourth quarter. I mean, weather was, you know, somewhat mild, but nothing to note. Of course, in the month of January, there was a fairly significant cold snap that affected our business in up to 30 states, and certainly is some impact, but nothing material by any means.

Yeah. And just on Q4, really was not- you are right. We have mentioned those markets on construction-driven activity. I would say those stayed about the same, and there was a little incremental weakness in the Northeast that may have been some minor weather during Q4.

And to your question on Texas and Florida, I think

you covered it. That was a construction-driven slowdown since you guys were-

Yep. Yep.

Thanks, guys. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Shlomo Rosenbaum with Stifel. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Hi. Thank you very much

for taking my questions.

Ron, I want to go back to some of the things you touched on earlier in the call about the ability to improve your operations with technology, and you are talking about routing and dynamic routing and other things. I want to ask, when you kind of sequenced some of these things that you were looking at, did you go after the biggest opportunities first? And what should we be thinking about for subsequent years of things that you are going to attack? And just, is there a way to use technology that you are seeing that maybe could squeeze more out of the assets, maybe trucks, maybe not have to have so many trucks on reserve, in terms of proactively being able to get them using technology? I am just trying to get other things that might be out there that might be able to squeeze more efficiency out of the system, both operationally and then, frankly, from a capital perspective?

Yeah. Well,

look. When we looked at this, we identified up to 40 areas that we could potentially look at the utilization of AI in some way or another. We prioritized the seven things over a three-year period that we thought had the biggest opportunity for impact to the business positively, whether that be from an operating, a financial, customer service, etcetera, efficiency. So those are the things we attack. Last year, we worked heavily, 2025, on commercial pricing and a couple of other initiatives in AI. This year, as I said, it will be on routing and mobile customer engagement. Without question, these initiatives should and I think will lead to improved efficiency, improved margin performance, and improved asset utilization. No question. You know, dynamic real-time routing allows you to move assets with information that today you do not really have or you have only reactively, not proactively. And therefore, you have to have a little bit higher spare factors in your fleet at locations, those kinds of things. You end up with a little higher overtime because you are reactive versus proactive. So it is not one of these things that moves the dial in one area, you know, 40 or 50 basis points. It is one of these things that moves seven or eight dials 10 to 20 basis points throughout your P&L over time. And so that is what we see and what we are seeing. And, ultimately, look, it provides a better service quality, a more proactive communication with your customer, a greater efficiency for your physical and your human assets, and greater projectability in your business. Those are the things we are expecting and we are seeing. So it just makes it better for all of our, you know, our shareholders, our customers, our employees, and ultimately our shareholders. So, yeah, we are excited about it. I think it is still early innings and not prepared to put a marker out there of what does this mean. But I can tell you that these investments, the payback is very quick.

The payback is months

to maybe a year to year and a half. So these are very solid investments for the business.

Okay. Thank you for that color. And then just more of a tactical perspective. Mary Anne, can you talk a little bit about what a change in commodities prices would do to

revenue and EBITDA in 2026 versus the baseline that you are using right now?

Yes. So when I look at overall what our commodities sales are of about $250,000,000, that tells you a 10% move is around $25,000,000. And so what we have factored into our outlook is a 15% decline overall year over year, which translates to meaning based on current prices as compared to last year, and that translates to that 20 to 30 basis points of margin drag, which starts off probably a multiple of that in Q1 and drops down over the course of the year.

Very helpful.

Your next question comes from the line of William Grippin with Barclays. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Good morning. I appreciate you squeezing me in here.

Just another one here on commodity prices. I know you are not baking in a recovery into the forecast, but just curious if you could maybe elaborate a little bit on what you are seeing in

market today and maybe what developments you are watching that could potentially

signal or support an improvement in commodities prices off these cyclical lows?

Sure. So, Will, we saw some incremental weakness early in the fourth quarter, then there was stabilization, and what we saw most recently was a little uptick in OCC, which was encouraging. The reality is, though, that was offset by incremental weakness in plastics. So I would say, overall, the basket really has not moved, which, again, that informs our thinking for how we guide. Then what we are watching for and looking forward to would really be the uptick which is driven by underlying economic activity, which ultimately drives the demand, most importantly for fiber, which, as you will recall, is the majority of the value in a ton of recycled materials. So cardboard-commerce. Demand, consumer confidence, all those things that are the engines of driving consumption, which ultimately is what drives our business and recycled commodity values.

Appreciate that. And then just coming back to RNG, and obviously the EPA

widely expected to release the 2026-2027 biofuels RVO here, hopefully in the first quarter. Anything you are watching there that

could cause you to maybe change your approach to RNG offtake

or capital deployment for those projects?

Really, just to be clear, these are terrific projects at a whole range of outcomes for RINs. And we have talked about delayed startup or the whole project development. If it goes to a couple-year payback or four or five years versus two or three, it is still very compelling. And as we remind folks, you know, we have $6,000,000,000 sunk into our landfills. Of course, we are looking to monetize the value as that gas-the waste-breaks down and generates gas. So you should expect us to continue to opportunistically pursue these projects. And, of course, we are completing the projects we have underway, and we look forward to delivering those returns. In terms of what we are watching, we are encouraged. You know, we do not know exactly where the RVOs come out or what RIN values do, but we have recently seen some improvement in the D5 RINs, which are a good indicator for D3 because that can be a substitute. And, again, we have seen stability in RIN values in that kind of $2.40 level. And we are encouraged by what we are seeing out there. So no change in the philosophy. As you know, we have taken a portfolio approach of not having outright risk on all of the RINs through a variety of ownership structures. We will continue to evaluate those opportunities over time and continue to own the most attractive in our network. But, again, no change in the thinking. As we have said, the largest outlays are behind us, getting through 2026 for this large group of facilities. But we will continue to have the one-off facilities over time as, again, as our landfills mature and the opportunities present themselves.

And one other thing I would say, William, that I think, you know, we were not going to talk about this, but since you raised the question, look. We have gone out and purposely recruited one of what we believe is the top RNG experts anywhere in the industry. And this person is an executive officer of one of the finest RNG companies. We work with all of them, and we have more regard for this company than anywhere else. And they have built and operated some of our facilities. And we have been laser-focused on figuring out how to have him join us, and he starts Monday morning. And we are very, very excited about that. We are not going to release that name right now because that is not appropriate for him or his company. But that, I think, shows you our commitment to RNG and our acknowledgment that we could continue to get better there. And like any area, just like we are doing in AI and others, if you have to go out and get the talent, we are going to go out and get the best talent we can find to drive what we may not be as good in as we are in some of our core competencies. So I think we will just continue to get better as we go forward in RNG starting Monday morning.

Great to hear that. Sounds like a nice win and a great resource. I appreciate the color.

Your next question comes from the line of Konark Gupta with Scotia Capital. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Thanks for squeezing me in. Just maybe on free cash, I wanted to understand, Mary Anne, if besides earnings growth that you expect this year and lesser outlays on RNG and Chiquita, is there anything else in terms of major swing factors embedded in guidance or any wild cards to watch for free cash?

No. I think, you know, when you think about the free cash flow drivers, you have got that incremental $100,000,000 in EBITDA, the decline in Chiquita. You know, we gave you the CapEx number that steps up a little bit. Cash taxes step up a little bit because they were so suppressed this year. But, no, I would say those are the major moving pieces that you have probably already observed.

Okay. Thanks. And just a clarification on the margin side of things. I mean, you said 50 bps to 70 bps of underlying expansion before commodities. But are there any headwinds that are embedded in that 50 to 70 bps, like, from Chiquita maybe? Or is there any, you know, tax offset that are swinging in the other direction?

No. We are talking about EBITDA margin drivers. No. There are no anomalistic headwinds that are out there. As I said, you know, we have lapped some of the outsized improvements that drove even greater underlying margin expansion, and we continue to work on all the same things. So we would look forward to unlocking even more margin expansion, but think this is the right way to guide.

Alright. Konark, thanks for taking that question. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Toni Michele Kaplan with Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Hey. Good morning. This is Yehuda Silverman on for Toni. Thanks for squeezing me in. Just a quick question on

strategy.

So the comments you made about how Chiquita is being affected by being in Los Angeles and California being the difference between that and other ETLF events. Does that change your strategy at all of where you might want to operate in terms of more politically friendly areas? Is that something that is already factored in, or is this just sort of a one-off situation?

Well, it is clear we would rather operate only in jurisdictions that have a more friendly business environment. But, you know, we are obviously in 45 states, so that bet is already decided. I certainly would not pursue owning an additional landfill in California in the next 200 years. But, other than that, no. It does not change anything.

Great. Thank you.

Your next

question comes from the line of Kevin Chiang with CIBC. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Thanks for taking my question. Maybe just here on the Eastern region. A lot of good color on what you are doing with Arrowhead. You know, you are rolling out the franchises in New York. Does that change the structural margin profile of the Eastern region? Those seem like they would be tailwinds to profitability. And then just broadly on Arrowhead, does the potential merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern change how you think about the growth opportunities within Arrowhead if you are partnering with a much bigger railroad there?

I will start with the margin commentary regarding our Eastern region. Certainly around the edges, as I mentioned, increased internalization does help margins. But, more broadly, the Eastern region’s margins are dictated by the high transfer and disposal expenses that are just inherent in that market. So that will never change. You can improve around the edges and look for ways to optimize within that market, and you have seen us do acquisitions that help on that front in terms of optionality. But, no, I would not encourage you to think about a major step change in the margins of the Eastern region beyond that. And then, Ron, I think-

Yeah. What I would say, Kevin, no. I do not necessarily believe that the franchise of New York City or the franchising model of the New York City market becomes necessarily a tailwind. What I do think, however, is it becomes a much more stable, less volatile market because it is a very competitive market up till now. And so you have large swings. So I think it becomes a much more stable, projectable, investable market than it has been in the past, where, you know, you can have a swing of a collection margin that goes from 10% to, you know, 6% to 20% in a three-year period. And now I think what you have is you will have a very tight bandwidth of margin performance for the most part at very good margins, at sort of company-average type margins on an integrated basis.

I think Kevin had also asked about the Norfolk Southern merger.

Oh, yeah. And, you know, look. I do not think-I mean, I think it is too early to tell what will happen in the UP-NS merger. You know, I think we are quite a ways away from understanding whether that will happen, and if it will happen, what will be the guardrails put around that. We have a very long-term agreement with Norfolk Southern that the combined company would be honoring, so we are not concerned about it in that way. Could it open up additional opportunity because of the connectivity between those two? Well, that is certainly a possibility, but not something we have yet explored.

That is great color. Thank you very much.

Your next question comes from the line of George Bancroft with Gabelli Funds. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Congratulations on doing great work, Ron and Mary Anne. My question, maybe you could opine a little bit here, Ron, on-you talked about automation and AI, but maybe a little further down the road. Thought of, you know, self-driving. Obviously, your largest part of your cost structure is

or a very large part is your

labor and all the driver tightness and your focus, the industry’s focus on safety. You have seen, obviously, some recent reports about the improvements in safety in self-driving. Have you ever talked to, ever thought about it, tested, done anything-maybe having either doing like a leasing-self-driving? It seems like it would be a great market for taking people off the truck and more safety. Even if the person stays on the truck and then you just have that added safety and technology there. Just want to get your thoughts on that.

Yeah. I mean, you know, Tony, number one, just to say that we have done anything in that arena would be misleading because we have not. Do I think it is something that could potentially occur in the waste industry? Absolutely. I think it is potentially there. As you know, there are mixed views depending on where you are and what you look at on the self-driving vehicles. It is obviously happening in some markets today. So the technology is certainly there.

But, you know, I will tell you, Tony, as you know, I am on the board

of a publicly traded airline, and I can tell you that, you know, for the last seven to eight years, you can push a jet back from the jetway to actually do the runway, take off, fly to your destination city, land, open the door, with no one in the cockpit. I am not sure anyone is getting on that plane. But there are still pilots in every day. So there is this theoretical, could this occur, and then the reality of, you know, when a car gets in an accident, that is bad. But when a garbage truck hits something, it is catastrophic. And so, you know, even if it could, I still think you would have professionals in the cab there for those reactionary scenarios that occur if something malfunctions. Exactly the reason airlines have pilots today. It is not because they cannot do it without it. It is because of the one-tenth of 1% that happens that they protect everyone from. And I think garbage truck would be the same way. But certainly something we will look at as the technology evolves. You know, we are always, as are our peers, always looking for ways to improve the safety aspect of the business, the efficiency, the customer improvement. But I think it is quite a ways out, and then, you know, we look forward to the day, if that opportunity arises, where we can improve it, but it is not there today.

Thanks, Ron and Mary Anne. Great job.

You bet.

Your next question comes from the line of Tobey Sommer with Truist. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Hi. It is Henry on for Tobey. Thanks for squeezing me in. Great to hear the labor turnover numbers and where those are to start the year. Could you just give us an update on driver academies? What percentage of new driver hires do you expect to pass through those in the coming year and how much of an incremental benefit that could have on labor turnover throughout the year?

Thanks.

Yeah. Thank you for asking that question. So when we opened our academies-one at the start of 2024 and one at the end of 2024-we felt that if we could get to approximately 35% of our driver need per year being internally developed at our academies, we would consider that a tremendous success. We achieved that number in 2025, and for 2026, we are forecasting that 60-plus percent of our driver need will go through one of our two academies. So far exceeding our expectations. Now that is a twofold function. That is because we have reduced turnover quite dramatically, so the need for new drivers is not as high. But the second and more important thing is the retention rate through our academies is almost double the retention rate of those that do not go through our academies. And we also thought that would happen, but we did not think it would be quite as good as it has been, however. So we are getting a double sort of whammy, and that is what has helped decelerate, improve turnover so quickly. Do we ever think that gets to 100%? Probably not. But if it could stay in this above-50% range per year-what we call being internally developed and trained-we would be very happy. And, as I said, we believe that number will be north of 60% this year. So, so far, that-and, you know, again, what is that yielding? We are working through getting the statistics to support this. But we believe that the drivers that go through our academies-number one, the turnover is lower. We know there is direct linkage between turnover and tenure and safety. And so we think as we look out through this year into next year, the linkage will show that those drivers we internally develop tend to have better safety performance statistics as well. So that is sort of where we are there.

Great. Thanks for

that. That is great to hear. And then just if we could quickly circle back to core pricing cadence over the course of the year, do you expect a pretty steady step down sequentially during 2026? And how much visibility do you guys have at this point in the year on the full-year guidance of pricing? Thank you.

Sure. So as is typical, you should expect pricing to step down sequentially. So, obviously, if we have talked about 5% to 5.5%, you would start north of that-maybe 6%-and drop down over the course of the quarters to something less than that to average that number in the middle. And in terms of visibility, as is typical in our model, by the time we report Q1, we will have visibility on 65% or 70% of our price increases. Most of the competitive piece will be done, and then we will have known amounts for our CPI-linked markets. So pretty typical for us in terms of the visibility. You know, we are a company that stops talking about price really after April.

There are no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call back to Ronald J. Mittelstaedt for closing remarks.

Okay.

Well, if there are no further questions, on behalf of our entire management team, we appreciate your listening to and interest in the call today. Mary Anne and Joe Box are available today to answer any direct questions that we did not cover that we are allowed to answer under Regulation FD, Regulation G, and applicable securities laws in Canada. Thank you again. We look forward to seeing you at upcoming investor conferences or on our next earnings call.

This concludes today's call. Thank you for attending. You may now disconnect.