公用事业民营化改革引发了公用事业企业在法律上属于“公机构”还是“私企业”的职能定性问题。以中断供应引发的服务供应纠纷为例,通过域外案例的比较观察可得,英国法和德国法均从行为性质这一实质标准而非产权性质这一形式标准进行判断。当供应企业履行普遍服务义务时,它构成一个公法上的主体,应对公民获得一个持续的基本公用事业服务的供应提供公法保护。 Privatization of public utilities reform has triggered the qualitative characterization of the public utilities enterprises in the law as “public institutions” or “private enterprises.” Take the case of service supply disruption caused by interruption of supply as an example. Through the comparative observation of extraterritorial cases, it is possible to judge both the English law and the German law from the substantive standard of the nature of conduct rather than the formal standard of property right. When a supply company fulfills a universal service obligation, it forms a public legal subject and public law protection is provided to citizens for the supply of a sustained basic utility service.