Statnett, a state owned entity operated by the energy ministry, runs the Norwegian grid.
> there shouldn't be a profit motive attached to basic services like electricity
(Like most hospitals in the US, by the way, coming back to the original "There shouldn't be a profit motive attached to basic services like electricity, policing (private prisons), or medicine" comment.)
The 501(c)(3) are the charitable ones, by the way.
"The more generous limit of non-exempt activity permissible to a 501(c)(4) explains why a 501(c)(4) organization may engage in substantial amounts of political campaign intervention activities even though the regulations make clear that such activities do not constitute the promotion of social welfare."
It's less pedantic and more: you can call a fork a spoon all you want, until you have to eat soup with it.
Edit: or maybe you were referring to hospitals? In that case you may be right and I was using the term loosely when I said “most”. There are different kinds of hospitals. My later comments were about ERCOT, not hospitals.
501(c)(3)s are charitable organizations, so “as a charitable organization” was also wrong. But 501(c)(3)s are a subset of 501(c) and thus are also nonprofits, so your implication that they could be a registered charitable organization but not a nonprofit was also wrong.
As a 501(c)(4) they are a nonprofit and not a charitable org; if they were a 501(c)(3) they would be both.
That's impossible in the US; “charitable organizations”—501(c)(3)—are a subset of nonprofits—501(c).