Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
A market is defined by the contracts entered into within it, IMHO, and it takes place within a legal and financial framework I call an enterprise model.

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.

by DoDo on Sun Mar 29th, 2009 at 11:01:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series