THERE was a reasonably favourable City reaction to the National Grid move across the pond to the comforting confines of New England which is geographically and culturally as near as it could get.
And the shares eased modestly as there are the inevitable fears that it is taking on something new.
However, the exposure is not that substantial given the #2.7bn value of the stake in the Energis telecoms business which will be able to capitalise on New England Electric System's own aspirations in that particular utility sector.
National Grid currently has no intention of selling its 74% Energis stake for another three to five years but that could alter if a really major opportunity did suddenly come its way.
There was a slight sense of frustration that chief executive David Jones would say little about the cost-cutting benefits - probably for political reasons ahead of regulatory approval.
There was also some puzzlement as to why he is not buying an inefficient operator in the same way that ScottishPower is acquiring PacifiCorp where there is a substantial inbuilt profit to come in due course from raising efficiencies before having to worry about price mechanisms.
Tomorrow, ScottishPower will give a lecture to the City on US regulatory and utility pricing which should assuage doubts about both its own deal and also help National Grid.
It is also likely to be attended by representatives of both British Energy and PowerGen which are also looking hungrily at the US as the world's largest energy market.
The question for both Scottish Power and National Grid is whether their negotiating skills and UK experience are really transferable and it will take a couple of years before the picture really becomes clear. But if they cannot make a go of it in the US, then their prospects elsewhere must be limited.
Electrical utilities in the UK have approximately trebled in value since privatisation and National Grid was downplaying the potential of its NEES acquisition on that score.
But it is a cautious company and on present information, shareholders should give it full support.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article