Start 30 days free, no card. Full Pro access for a month, then decide. Start free
Analyst
Praneeth Satish
Period: Reporting periods mapped to calendar 2024 Q4 – 2026 Q2 (7 quarters).
- Questions
- 23on tracked calls
- Challenge rate
- 4%1 of 23 questions
- Companies
- 5questioned at least once
- Reporting periods
- 7with questions
These figures cover the whole profile: every tracked question, all reporting periods.
How to read these numbers
Challenge rate is the share of questions that pushed back, pressed for specifics or questioned management’s assumptions. It describes how questions were asked on the calls tracked here; it does not measure whether any view turned out to be right.
Rounding. Rates are rounded to whole percentages, so a small share can show as 0% even when some questions were challenging. The count beside each rate is exact; “none of N questions” means no question was challenging.
No questions recorded. “—” means there is nothing to calculate: no questions were recorded for that period on the calls tracked here. It does not mean there was no activity.
Fewer than 3 questions. A company-level rate is withheld when fewer than 3 questions were recorded for that company; the questions are still counted everywhere else.
Small samples. Profiles with fewer than 10 questions are marked Limited sample.
Reporting periods. Questions are grouped by the calendar quarter each company’s fiscal reporting period maps to, not by the date of the call. Periods without a calendar mapping are listed separately under their fiscal label.
Questions asked
Grouped by company, most questions first. Open a company to read its questions, newest reporting period first.
Showing 23 of 23 questions from 5 companies
WMBWilliams Companies14 questions · 7 reporting periods · 1 of 14 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
the 8.5x acquisition multiple, is that multiple calculated based on Momentum's consolidated EBITDA?
Show response
Chad clarified the multiple is on consolidated EBITDA, ~9x net of NCI; direct.
So the EBITDA CAGR here was increased to 11% from 10% 5-year EBITDA CAGR.
Show response
John confirmed the 11% is an update to the prior 8%/9% figures and embeds conservatism; direct answer.
Calendar 2026 Q1
could you provide an update of how much redundant capacity you think is appropriate for the future power projects
Show response
Zamarin said efficiency gains continue as lessons from Socrates, Aquila, and Apollo are applied to new projects. Expects impressive efficiency gains over time.
Can you talk about the opportunities that you're seeing in the Rockies and whether the Silver Spur expansion
Show response
Larsen confirmed Silver Spur is first phase of Rockies Columbia Connector. Still progressing discussions with customers in Washington and Oregon for second phase.
Calendar 2025 Q4
Many investors that we speak to kind of view the behind-the-meter power business is a 5-year opportunity and at some point in the future, the speed-to-market advantages may start to fade.
Show response
Satish raised the bear case that BTM power is a 5-year window with fading advantages. Zamarin pushed back firmly, describing efforts to evolve toward combined cycle, heat recovery, and grid integration to bring down LCOE over time. He argued the need for tailored power solutions will persist for decades based on the infrastructure dislocation fundamentals.
how are you weighing the dilution from bringing in JV partners versus keeping more of this value in-house, it is very accretive. And will there be a promote if JV partners are brought in?
Show response
Satish asked about JV partner dilution vs keeping value in-house. Porter said they're seeing many options from traditional JVs to insurance-backed money, emphasizing they want to remain operator and retain upside. Zamarin added returns are so attractive that bringing in partners at lower cost of capital would only promote economics.
Calendar 2025 Q3
can you give us a sense of where you are in the procurement cycle for turbines
Show response
Zamarin said equipment secured almost through end of decade across multiple providers. New projects now layering into late 2027 and 2028 timeframes. More details at February event.
I think that's the second time now. So can you just walk through what's driving that change
Show response
Larsen said scope reflects customer power generation needs finalization and design optimization. Returns unchanged with ability to go bigger if demand materializes. FERC process to start next year.
Calendar 2025 Q2
can you provide any updates there on where those projects stand in development when you expect to FID them
Show response
Zamarin expects commercial agreements in second half of year. Another gigawatt of capacity online by end of 2027 remains on track. Economics expected to be as attractive as Socrates. Also exploring upsizing Socrates.
do you think there's some upward bias here to the 5% to 7% EBITDA CAGR guidance that's out there
Show response
Zamarin confirmed no headwinds and growth tailwinds even stronger than past 5 years. Promised more color at early 2026 Analyst Day. Emphasized discipline while demonstrating ability to exceed historical growth rates.
Calendar 2025 Q1
Can you help us just understand if the size and returns for these potential projects are going to be similar to what we saw with Socrates
Show response
Zamarin confirmed similar scope and scale to Socrates, possibly a bit smaller as design efficiency improves. Expects full commercialization throughout remainder of year.
do you anticipate this evolving into a platform for additional power generation investments? What's your appetite for increasing your ownership stake
Show response
Armstrong clarified Cogentrix is about positioning for gas supply changes in Northeast power markets, not merchant power strategy. Emphasis on Quantum Energy partnership and driving core gas business.
Calendar 2024 Q4
What is your willingness to flex CapEx higher in 2025 if this BTM, behind the meter project goes through
Show response
Armstrong emphasized risk-adjusted return discipline and balance sheet preservation. Behind-the-meter project excluded from CapEx until final agreements signed.
can you help frame how large of a project it is? Is it kind of in the $1 billion range, just trying to figure out the scale
Show response
Armstrong confirmed meaningful capital impact but declined to specify dollar amount. Noted power generation equipment as likely supply constraint but said Williams has key purchasing relationships.
FSLRFirst Solar4 questions · 3 reporting periods · 0 of 4 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
do you think that could mute some of the price upside from Section 232
Show response
Widmar acknowledged waivers would dilute the intent of 232 but could not size the impact, saying it depends on scale and duration.
would you bring that volume into the U.S. As finished products, or would you — would it come through as unfinished
Show response
Bradley laid out both paths and flagged only a couple hundred megawatts of incremental finishing capacity across the existing Ohio fleet.
Calendar 2026 Q1
With the IPA tariffs repealed and import tariffs on India-produced modules down to 15%, just seeing how are you thinking about selling the India capacity into the U.S.
Show response
Mark said India demand too strong and margins too attractive to redirect. Fixed-tilt to tracker changeover is costly and clunky. Will bring small volumes of WIP from India to U.S. for finishing. Q3 seasonal softness could create window. Of 1.7 GW bookings, 0.9 was U.S. and 0.8 was India.
Calendar 2025 Q2
should we assume that at a minimum, you're trying to look for some price discovery above $0.32, $0.33?
Show response
Mark explained safe harbor seeding strategy: 200 MW safe harbor creates 2-3 GW follow-on opportunity due to inverter-level compatibility lock-in with CadTel technology.
GNRCGenerac3 questions · 3 reporting periods · 0 of 3 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
how are they thinking about backup generation for behind-the-meter data centers?
Show response
Jagdfeld argued turbine and recip self-generation are bridge technologies and said TAM excludes some behind-the-meter sites, but gave no backup ratio for those deployments.
Calendar 2026 Q1
the release in there, it references a potential multiyear hyperscale agreement. Is that referring to the same customer
Show response
Aaron confirmed 2 hyperscaler opportunities: one with $600M NTP is closest to close, second close behind. Both offer multiyear volume. Current $1B capacity insufficient for both; need bigger boat. Accelerating Sussex to Q3 from Q4. York: 232 tariffs assumed to offset EPA tariff savings, net neutral.
Calendar 2025 Q4
is it possible at this point to increase capacity above $1 billion in
Show response
Aaron clarified $1B is domestic only; additional $200M+ internationally. Next doubling to $2B would prefer hard orders but depends on signal strength. Investor Day March 25 to provide fuller capacity roadmap. Competitors at 2-year lead times; Generac's engine partner enables shorter.
KMIKinder Morgan1 question · 1 reporting period · 0 of 1 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
I'm wondering if that's the right target anymore? Is there a scenario here where the backlog becomes large enough
Show response
Kim tied the >$3B annual CapEx to the current ~$10B backlog and laid out balance-sheet capacity ($850M per 0.1x) to fund incremental power-driven growth.
OKEONEOK1 question · 1 reporting period · 0 of 1 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
how much remaining uncontracted capacity do you have on the system?
Show response
Swords said West Texas NGL pipeline has capacity up to 740,000 barrels a day with ample room for growth.
Challenge rate by company
Every company this analyst questioned, most questions first. A company-level rate is shown from 3 questions; below that it is withheld.
| Company | Questions | Challenge rate |
|---|---|---|
| WMB Williams Companies | 14 | 7%1 of 14 questions |
| FSLR First Solar | 4 | 0%none of 4 questions |
| GNRC Generac | 3 | 0%none of 3 questions |
| KMI Kinder Morgan | 1 | —Rate withheld: fewer than 3 questions |
| OKE ONEOK | 1 | —Rate withheld: fewer than 3 questions |
Activity by reporting period
Questions recorded for each calendar quarter that companies’ reporting periods map to (not the call date), with the challenge rate for that period. Periods inside the range with no questions are shown as “No questions recorded”.
| Calendar period | Questions | Challenge rate | Companies |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 Q4 | 2 | 0%none of 2 questions | 1 |
| 2025 Q1 | 2 | 0%none of 2 questions | 1 |
| 2025 Q2 | 3 | 0%none of 3 questions | 2 |
| 2025 Q3 | 2 | 50%1 of 2 questions | 1 |
| 2025 Q4 | 3 | 0%none of 3 questions | 2 |
| 2026 Q1 | 4 | 0%none of 4 questions | 3 |
| 2026 Q2 | 7 | 0%none of 7 questions | 5 |
- 2024 Q42 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 2 questions) · 1 company
- 2025 Q12 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 2 questions) · 1 company
- 2025 Q23 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 3 questions) · 2 companies
- 2025 Q32 questions · challenge rate 50% (1 of 2 questions) · 1 company
- 2025 Q43 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 3 questions) · 2 companies
- 2026 Q14 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 4 questions) · 3 companies
- 2026 Q27 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 7 questions) · 5 companies
Topics
Topics tagged on this analyst’s questions.
- Capex Investment11
- Demand4
- Capital Allocation4
- Cloud & AI4
- Competitive Dynamics3
- Innovation & R&D3
- Trade Tariffs3
- Pricing2
- Supply Chain2
- Revenue Growth2
Show all 17 topics
- Guidance Reliability2
- Geographic Expansion2
- Regulation Policy1
- M&A1
- Margin1
- Product Launch1
- Cost Pressure1