Ostrom did not apply her work to electricity (correct me if I am wrong), and for a reason. It is not a 'commons' and was not before government intervention (mandatory open access) made it so.
Control areas to respect the physics of electricity were employed both before and after public utility regulation began a century or more ago. (There was no "market failure" that I know of to suggest de facto socialism was the way to go.)
If Ostrom was alive today and saw the experience of ISOs/RTOs, I doubt she would be impressed. So ... private property rights are just fine with electricity.
My comment here too:
Ostrom did not apply her work to electricity (correct me if I am wrong), and for a reason. It is not a 'commons' and was not before government intervention (mandatory open access) made it so.
Control areas to respect the physics of electricity were employed both before and after public utility regulation began a century or more ago. (There was no "market failure" that I know of to suggest de facto socialism was the way to go.)
If Ostrom was alive today and saw the experience of ISOs/RTOs, I doubt she would be impressed. So ... private property rights are just fine with electricity.
Does China's policy of holding all land in common conform to Ostrom's Law?