For contracts, you need contractors, and some performance delivered. Those are defined before the contracts. As part of a market, you also need to have contractors in competition. Thus, methinks, the contracts only define the actual state of the market, not the market itself.

So I would advocate a grid "owned" by a custodian; operated by a service provider consortium; with the costs shared proportionally among users; and with any capital necessary coming from selling the revenues forward through "unitisation".

I, too, would be more comfortable with a public-held grid. But most points we raise are also valid if that is not the case, so I think it would be hard to fit it in.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}