Pa. Cons. Stat. » 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. (PUBLIC UTILITIES) / Chapter 30
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3005 (2026)

 Competitive services (Repealed).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

§ 3005.  Competitive services (Repealed).

 

2004 Repeal.  Section 3005 was repealed November 30, 2004, P.L.1398, No.183, effective immediately.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1995–2010 · leading case: Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util., 706 A.2d 1197 (Pa. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util., 706 A.2d 1197 (Pa. 1997). · cites it 12× “The PUC's interpretation of 66 Pa.C.S. § 3005 is reasonable, is not clearly erroneous, and therefore should have been sustained.”
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 669 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). · cites it 15× “§ 3003(b) in that it was not sufficiently detailed and did not reasonably balance its broadband network between urban, suburban and rural areas; and (3) with the exception of the Billing Collection services, Bell’s competitive deregulation proposal did not meet the requirements…”
Bell Atl.-Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 763 A.2d 440 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000). · cites it 12× “66 Pa.C.S. § 3005. As pointed out in the Main Brief of AT & T Communications of Pennsylvania, Inc.”
City of Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 702 A.2d 1139 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997). “Section 3005(b) of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 3005(b), provides: The commission shall establish regulations to prevent local exchange telecommunications companies from engaging in unfair competition and require that local exchange telecommunications companies provide…”
Buffalo Valley Tel. Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 990 A.2d 67 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010). · cites it 3× “The Supreme Court also found that this Court exceeded its scope of review when it rejected the Commission’s statutory interpre-talion of 66 Pa.C.S. § 3005. The Supreme Court deferred instead to the Commission’s interpretation that the classification of a service as "competitive”…”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3005(a) — 3 cases
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util., 706 A.2d 1197 (Pa. 1997). “The PUC's interpretation of 66 Pa.C.S. § 3005 is reasonable, is not clearly erroneous, and therefore should have been sustained.”
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 669 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). “§ 3003(b) in that it was not sufficiently detailed and did not reasonably balance its broadband network between urban, suburban and rural areas; and (3) with the exception of the Billing Collection services, Bell’s competitive deregulation proposal did not meet the requirements…”
Buffalo Valley Tel. Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 990 A.2d 67 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010). “The Supreme Court also found that this Court exceeded its scope of review when it rejected the Commission’s statutory interpre-talion of 66 Pa.C.S. § 3005. The Supreme Court deferred instead to the Commission’s interpretation that the classification of a service as "competitive”…”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3005(a)(1) — 3 cases
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util., 706 A.2d 1197 (Pa. 1997). “The PUC's interpretation of 66 Pa.C.S. § 3005 is reasonable, is not clearly erroneous, and therefore should have been sustained.”
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 669 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). “§ 3003(b) in that it was not sufficiently detailed and did not reasonably balance its broadband network between urban, suburban and rural areas; and (3) with the exception of the Billing Collection services, Bell’s competitive deregulation proposal did not meet the requirements…”
Bell Atl.-Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 763 A.2d 440 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000). “66 Pa.C.S. § 3005. As pointed out in the Main Brief of AT & T Communications of Pennsylvania, Inc.”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3005(a)(2) — 1 case
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 669 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). “§ 3003(b) in that it was not sufficiently detailed and did not reasonably balance its broadband network between urban, suburban and rural areas; and (3) with the exception of the Billing Collection services, Bell’s competitive deregulation proposal did not meet the requirements…”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3005(b) — 4 cases
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util., 706 A.2d 1197 (Pa. 1997). “The PUC's interpretation of 66 Pa.C.S. § 3005 is reasonable, is not clearly erroneous, and therefore should have been sustained.”
Bell Atl.-Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 763 A.2d 440 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000). “66 Pa.C.S. § 3005. As pointed out in the Main Brief of AT & T Communications of Pennsylvania, Inc.”
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 669 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). “§ 3003(b) in that it was not sufficiently detailed and did not reasonably balance its broadband network between urban, suburban and rural areas; and (3) with the exception of the Billing Collection services, Bell’s competitive deregulation proposal did not meet the requirements…”
City of Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 702 A.2d 1139 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997). “Section 3005(b) of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 3005(b), provides: The commission shall establish regulations to prevent local exchange telecommunications companies from engaging in unfair competition and require that local exchange telecommunications companies provide…”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3005(e) — 2 cases
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util., 706 A.2d 1197 (Pa. 1997). “The PUC's interpretation of 66 Pa.C.S. § 3005 is reasonable, is not clearly erroneous, and therefore should have been sustained.”
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 669 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). “§ 3003(b) in that it was not sufficiently detailed and did not reasonably balance its broadband network between urban, suburban and rural areas; and (3) with the exception of the Billing Collection services, Bell’s competitive deregulation proposal did not meet the requirements…”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3005(e)(2) — 1 case
Bell Atl.-Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 763 A.2d 440 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000). “66 Pa.C.S. § 3005. As pointed out in the Main Brief of AT & T Communications of Pennsylvania, Inc.”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3005(g)(2) — 1 case
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 669 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). “§ 3003(b) in that it was not sufficiently detailed and did not reasonably balance its broadband network between urban, suburban and rural areas; and (3) with the exception of the Billing Collection services, Bell’s competitive deregulation proposal did not meet the requirements…”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3005(h) — 1 case
Bell Atl.-Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 763 A.2d 440 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000). “66 Pa.C.S. § 3005. As pointed out in the Main Brief of AT & T Communications of Pennsylvania, Inc.”
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.