Isn't that why the government has the power of taxation or the ability to levy fees? Not that I'm a fan of government reach, but if the single, monopoly, private corporation can't provide necessary services at a rate that their customers can afford, and there isn't any competition to "naturally" reduce rates, then this is a place where governments usually step in. They step in the form of subsidies and grants, the sources of income of which are usually taxation or fees levied to other constituents. And electricity, running water, and sewage are considered to be essential necessities, not luxuries. This is an area where monopolistic practices should have limits, even if such costs are "necessary". This is where governments have the positive ability to help.
My comment was based on the understanding was that the government was already involved with the company and proving subsidies already.
"Isn't that why the government has the power of taxation or the ability to levy fees?"
My point was that some taxation is based on usage, so charging those using the utility would make sense. This would mean still charging the people connected. Otherwise, who would the government tax to subsidize these other citizens?
In this case, government grants to individual homeowners looking to connect to the public utility makes the most sense. It's also easy to quantify since you can see how many people are interested in connecting to the grid who aren't currently. Governments can find multiple ways to source funds for those grants. Homeowners would apply for those grants and get funds for the connection. If funds aren't provided directly they are often provided as credits against property tax. The gov pays the utility directly.
I've seen it done this way for many different projects.
"My point was that some taxation is based on usage, so charging those using the utility would make sense"
Thats literally the opposite of how taxes work. What you are describing is called charging the customer.
Taxes are paid independant of usage, my taxes pay for schools wven if I dont have kids. Someone with 10 kids but less income pays less taxes for schools.
>And electricity, running water, and sewage are considered to be essential necessities, not luxuries.
In the US, the latter two are not broadly considered necessities in rural areas. The situation varies but wells, where possible, and septic systems are extremely common away from urban metros and towns of a certain size.
I have both a well and septic, so I totally get it. But if you are connected to public water or public sewer, which often a municipal monopoly for good reasons, and you have limited other choices, the local government places restrictions on the cost of getting hooked up to public water and sewer if there are no alternatives.
In any case, water and sewer are indeed considered necessities and you are unable to sell or convey a house in the state that I live without a functional water or sewage system, whether on public water/sewer or on well / septic. If you have a non-functioning well or non-functioning septic (outhouses are no longer allowed), then you can't sell your house, and also you are in risk of having your own house condemned. So these are indeed necessities.
They're not considered necessities in the sense that the government has to, in general, provide you with a hookup at a reasonable cost. But, as you say, running water and proper sewage may be a zoning requirement to build a house and live on a property just as a variety of other things may be requirements.
I think you can still call them neccessary, but they just aren't public utilities in rural areas. If you have a well, you still have running water. If you have a septic system, the sewage has somewhere to go.
Right. But the context was a comment to the effect of the government providing them at a reasonable price. Which, as you say, it commonly doesn't in many rural or semi-rural areas.
