NEW YORK April 26, 2006

Much investment in U.S. and Canadian electric transmission is under way, and fairly new, stand-alone transmission-only companies sponsor a decent share of it, according to a report published today by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services titled "Peer Comparison: North American Stand-Alone Transmission Companies Deliver Electricity.And Profits."

Some of these companies were created when large, vertically integrated utilities sold their transmission assets to meet regulatory requirements or respond to favorable financial incentives. The stand-alone transmission company, or transco, is proving to be a good business model for making transmission investments and providing shareholder returns--a favorable combination that could support a virtuous cycle for additional investment in this critical infrastructure.

Standard & Poor's has solid investment-grade ratings on three North American transcos:

-- American Transmission Co. (ATC; A+/Stable/-- corporate credit rating and senior unsecured rating),

-- Independent Transmission Co. (ITC), a subsidiary of ITC Holdings Corp. (BBB/Stable/-- corporate credit rating; 'BBB+' senior secured rating), and

-- AltaLink L.P. (A-/Stable/-- corporate credit rating and senior secured rating).

"Despite each having investment-grade creditworthiness, the companies are exposed to notably different business and financial risks," said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Terry Pratt.

Standard & Poor's assigns corporate utilities a business risk profile score ranging from '1' (excellent) to '10' (vulnerable), based mainly on their regulation, markets, operations, competitiveness, and management. Competitiveness is not a major risk factor for these three transcos. We assign scores of '1' to ATC and '2' to AltaLink and ITC, but we note that AltaLink has a lower business risk profile than ITC due to more favorable regulation and markets.

We determines the transcos' financial risk profiles mainly by examining their corporate governance in terms of risk tolerance and financial policies, and their cash flow adequacy, capital structure, and liquidity. Aside from differences on leverage aggressiveness, the companies are generally similar on corporate governance.