Read More
The case study from 2012 highlights KKR’s early role in facilitating the creation and growth of ITC through transformative capital investment, regulatory structuring, and operational build-out. Since then, however, the company has evolved significantly. Today, as a subsidiary of Fortis Inc., ITC has matured as a regulated utility with large, predictable capital needs, substantial infrastructure, and strong regulatory exposure. Comparisons between historical and current data reveal both consistency in core mission and shifts in scale, ownership, and risk profile.
ITC’s current geography (Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wisconsin) and infrastructure footprint (~16,000 circuit-miles, ~700 stations/substations) show large scale. Operating across multiple states but under cost-based regulation provides stability, but also exposes the company to ongoing regulatory scrutiny, especially around rate of return (ROE), formula rate mechanisms, and competitive solicitation policy. ([sec.gov](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1317630/000131763025000002/itc-20241231.htmsource=openai))
The current capex plan of ~$5.8B through 2029 signals a mature utility needing constant investment to meet both reliability demands and clean energy transitions. Priorities include transmission line replacement, grid modernization, interconnection of renewables, grid cybersecurity, and market access enhancement. This investment density, while essential, challenges cash-flow management, debt load, and rate base expansion. ([sec.gov](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1317630/000131763025000002/itc-20241231.htmsource=openai))
Ownership under Fortis since 2016 provides support via parent company size and regulatory experience. Since ITC is not publicly traded, it relies on well-structured regulatory filings, strong credit ratings, and FERC approvals for rate base recovery. This structure limits volatility but increases dependence on regulation. Open questions remain around future ROE determinations and how evolving policies (e.g. around competitive transmission solicitations) might pressure margins. ([sec.gov](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1317630/000131763025000002/itc-20241231.htmsource=openai))
In strategic terms, ITC occupies a favorable position given national priorities: grid reliability, renewables integration, electrification and climate resilience. The large projected investments position ITC to benefit if federal funding or state/regional incentives increase. However, the company must navigate legal risk (possible challenges to rate-of-return or right-of-first-refusal rules), cost pressures (materials, labor, cybersecurity), and rate cases that might lag project spending.
Comparing to the 2012 case study, KKR’s approach was high risk, high growth in a deregulated and investor-friendly regulatory environment. In contrast, ITC today is in a phase of scaling infrastructure in a constrained regulatory framework. This suggests diminishing marginal returns per dollar invested unless regulatory incentives evolve, and underscores the importance of public policy trends, FERC rulemaking (e.g. competitive transmission), and federal infrastructure legislation.
Further, while earlier metrics (2010 operating revenue ~$697 million, ~$454 million capex) suggest smaller scale, current data (employees ~700; capital budgets in billions) show exponential growth and capital intensity. ([itc-holdings.com](https://www.itc-holdings.com/about-our-company-itc-holdings/source=openai))
