Concept 2 is a little different in that you're not dealing with wind, gradient or surfaces. So while the relationship between pace and power isn't linear it is at least consistent from one session to the next. Plus the display isn't capable of showing both pace and power at the same time (or at least not on the ones I've used), so given you have to choose one or the other it makes much more sense to pick pace since that's what you need for tests and races. I did have a coach ~20 years ago who used power to work out intensity for different athletes and sessions, but he always translated it back to pace to make it easier for us to follow. Suspect that sort of approach is probably more widespread now.
Agree there should be no objections to using running power. Does seem to me though that it would be less useful than cycling power, given that speeds are much lower (so wind has a lot less impact and gradients change more gradually) and there's no gears to take into account, so RPE and pace work a lot better. Not perfect, but good enough that I don't think running power is going to change training approaches as much as cycling power has.
Agree there should be no objections to using running power. Does seem to me though that it would be less useful than cycling power, given that speeds are much lower (so wind has a lot less impact and gradients change more gradually) and there's no gears to take into account, so RPE and pace work a lot better. Not perfect, but good enough that I don't think running power is going to change training approaches as much as cycling power has.