Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 103 (2026)

Prior rights preserved.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 103. Prior rights preserved.

(a) Existing law continued.--Except as otherwise specifically provided in this part, it is the intention of this part to continue existing law. Any public utility, contract carrier by motor vehicle, or broker rendering service or having the right to render service on the day preceding the effective date of this part shall be entitled to the full enjoyment and the exercise of all and every right, power and privilege which it lawfully possessed on that date.

(b) Existing proceedings, certificates, regulations, tariffs and contracts.--All litigation, hearings, investigations, and other proceedings whatsoever, pending under any repealed statute supplied by this part, shall continue and remain in full force and effect, and may be continued and completed under the provisions of this part. All certificates, permits, licenses, orders, rules, regulations or tariffs made, issued, or filed under any repealed statute supplied by this part, and in full force and effect upon the effective date of this part, shall remain in full force and effect for the term issued, or until revoked, vacated, or modified under the provisions of this part. All existing contracts and obligations of the commission or its predecessor, entered into or created under any repealed statute supplied by this part, and in force and effect upon the effective date of this part, shall remain in full force and effect and shall continue to be performed by the commission.

(c) Remedies cumulative.--Except as otherwise provided in this part, nothing in this part shall abridge or alter the existing rights of action or remedies in equity or under common or statutory law of this Commonwealth, and the provisions of this part shall be cumulative and in addition to such rights of action and remedies.

Cross References. Section 103 is referred to in section 1102 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Elkin v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pennsylvania, 420 A.2d 371 (Pa. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Elkin v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pennsylvania, 420 A.2d 371 (Pa. 1980). · cites it 2× “2d at 794 , this Court concluded that the courts must have jurisdiction over all damage actions.”

Kantor v. Hiko Energy, LLC, 100 F. Supp. 3d 421 (E.D. Pa. 2015). · cites it 2× “66 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 103(c). In Pettko , the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that the PUC had exclusive jurisdiction over Pettko’s conversion and contract claims, but it did not have exclusive jurisdiction over his UTPCPL claims.”

Pettko v. Pennsylvania Am. Water Co., 39 A.3d 473 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012). · cites it 2× “66 Pa.C.S. § 103(c). . In contrast to the primary jurisdiction doctrine, we note that courts have defined subject matter jurisdiction generally as a court's or tribunal's power to hear cases of the class to which the case at issue belongs.”

Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 875 A.2d 1243 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2× “Similarly, in 1978, when the General Assembly repealed the 1937 Act and *1250 enacted the Code, it provided in section 103(b) that All certificates, permits, licenses, orders, rules, regulations or tariffs made, issued, or filed under any repealed statute supplied by this part,…”

Vertis Grp., Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 840 A.2d 390 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003). · cites it 4× “" 66 Pa.C.S. § 103(c). We have reviewed the thorough and lengthy decisions of both the ALJ and the PUC.”

Makovsky Bros. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 423 A.2d 1089 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980). “Such procedure is expressly authorized by Section 103(b) of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa. C. S. §103 (b). 66 Pa. C. S. §1102.”

Virgilli v. Sw. Pennsylvania Water Auth., 427 A.2d 1251 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1981). “§501, the Code does not confer an exclusive jurisdiction to decide all matters involving regulated public utilities.”

Mcdonald v. Lake Hauto Club, 428 A.2d 785 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1981). “A similar provision is now found at 66 Pa. C. S. §103); Howe v. Smith, 203 Pa.”

Borough of Middletown v. PA PUC (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023). · cites it 3× “entitled to a declaration that it could obtain electric service from MetEd, without the Borough’s consent, and that MetEd was certificated to provide such service because MetEd’s authority to provide service was a matter within the Commission’s jurisdiction and existed from…”

G.N. Green v. Septa (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). “Section 103(b) of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa. C.S. §103(b) (“Except as otherwise provided in this part, nothing in this part shall abridge or alter the existing rights of action or remedies in equity or under common or statutory law of this Commonwealth, and the provisions…”

Pettko v. Pennsylvania-Am. Water Co., 15 Pa. D. & C.5th 565 (2010). “Except as otherwise provided in this party, nothing in this part shall abridge or alter the existing rights of action or remedies in equity or under common or statutory law of this Commonwealth, and *571 the provisions of this part shall be cumulative and in addition to such…”

Rheems Water Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 620 A.2d 609 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1993). “The issues raised by the petitioner Rheems are: 1) Whether the PUC committed an error of law by refusing to recognize Rheems as a “grandfathered” public utility contrary to 66 Pa.C.S. § 103 which recognizes that “[a]ny public utility .”

— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 103(a) — 1 case

Borough of Middletown v. PA PUC (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023). “entitled to a declaration that it could obtain electric service from MetEd, without the Borough’s consent, and that MetEd was certificated to provide such service because MetEd’s authority to provide service was a matter within the Commission’s jurisdiction and existed from…”

— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 103(b) — 2 cases

Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 875 A.2d 1243 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005). “Similarly, in 1978, when the General Assembly repealed the 1937 Act and *1250 enacted the Code, it provided in section 103(b) that All certificates, permits, licenses, orders, rules, regulations or tariffs made, issued, or filed under any repealed statute supplied by this part,…”

— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 103(c) — 5 cases

Kantor v. Hiko Energy, LLC, 100 F. Supp. 3d 421 (E.D. Pa. 2015). “66 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 103(c). In Pettko , the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that the PUC had exclusive jurisdiction over Pettko’s conversion and contract claims, but it did not have exclusive jurisdiction over his UTPCPL claims.”

Pettko v. Pennsylvania Am. Water Co., 39 A.3d 473 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012). “66 Pa.C.S. § 103(c). . In contrast to the primary jurisdiction doctrine, we note that courts have defined subject matter jurisdiction generally as a court's or tribunal's power to hear cases of the class to which the case at issue belongs.”

Vertis Grp., Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 840 A.2d 390 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003). “" 66 Pa.C.S. § 103(c). We have reviewed the thorough and lengthy decisions of both the ALJ and the PUC.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.