Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3003 (2026)
Local exchange telecommunications company request for alternative regulation and network modernization implementation plan (Repealed).
✓ 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
§ 3003. Local exchange telecommunications company request for alternative regulation and network modernization implementation plan (Repealed).
2004 Repeal. Section 3003 was repealed November 30, 2004, P.L.1398, No.183, effective immediately.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1995–2017 · leading case: Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 669 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995).
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 669 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). “66 Pa.C.S. § 3003. . At the evidentiary hearings, the testimony of thirty-two witnesses was offered by the parties.”
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util., 706 A.2d 1197 (Pa. 1997). “66 Pa.C.S. § 3003(b). *455 Among the criteria which must be met by a petition for alternative regulation is an assurance that rates for noncompetitive services will be just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory.”
Kegerreis Outdoor Advert. Co. v. Dep't of Transp., 157 A.3d 1033 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017). “In rendering its decision, the PUC engaged in an interpretation of former Chapter 30 of the Public Utility Code to determine whether that chapter requires competitive safeguards to be in place before services are deregulated, or whether the PUC may find the services to be…”
Bell Atl.-Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 763 A.2d 440 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000). “66 Pa.C.S. §§ 3003, 3004. Second, upon petition by a local exchange telecommunications company the PUC may make a determination substantially deregulating rates for certain services identified as competitive, but subject to conditions allowing all competitors nondiscriminatory…”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3003(a) — 1 case
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 669 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). “66 Pa.C.S. § 3003. . At the evidentiary hearings, the testimony of thirty-two witnesses was offered by the parties.”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3003(b) — 2 cases
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util., 706 A.2d 1197 (Pa. 1997). “66 Pa.C.S. § 3003(b). *455 Among the criteria which must be met by a petition for alternative regulation is an assurance that rates for noncompetitive services will be just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory.”
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 669 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). “66 Pa.C.S. § 3003. . At the evidentiary hearings, the testimony of thirty-two witnesses was offered by the parties.”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3003(b)(1) — 1 case
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 669 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). “66 Pa.C.S. § 3003. . At the evidentiary hearings, the testimony of thirty-two witnesses was offered by the parties.”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3003(b)(2) — 1 case
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 669 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). “66 Pa.C.S. § 3003. . At the evidentiary hearings, the testimony of thirty-two witnesses was offered by the parties.”
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.