In this study, the nature of economic public services and the authority of the administration to set tariffs within the framework of the principles prevailing in these services, after the decision of EMRA for a gradual increase of up to 127 percent in residences, is discussed. The re-evaluation of the principles that dominate public services ensures that the beneficiaries are not customers and that the aspects of the public service subject to the public law regime are clarified. Regular, continuous, equal and accessible public service is the duty of the administration and a right for those who benefit from the service in a social state. The principle of accessibility of public services is not only about physical presence and accessibility. This principle, when considered together with the principle of equality and continuity, means that those who benefit from the service can benefit from the service in return for a reasonable price. In order to ensure this accessibility, the administration, which has discretion in determining tariffs, should use its discretion in the context of proportionality principle. When it is remembered that the administration, which uses public power in determining tariffs, cannot have a special purpose other than the purpose of public benefit, it should be noted that the balance to be observed by the administration also stems from the privileges of public power it has due to the fact that the public is the real owner of the service. Due to this superior position, the administration can balance the rights of the beneficiaries, which are restricted through tariffs, within the framework of social justice by providing services in accordance with the basic principles of the public service. At this point, it will bring into question that the tariff decisions of the administration, which make the service inaccessible, are against the principle of proportionality and the law. On the other hand, it should be accepted that the right to access to energy in the context of the right to suitable housing and the right to health creates a protected value, and the principle of social state creates a positive performance obligation on the state to support the right holders in the establishment of the right to a life worthy of human dignity.