OPINION BY
Senior Judge McCLOSKEY.
The Vertis Group, Inc., Crain/Hallas Corporation, Lawrence Crain, Joyce Hal-las Crain, Mark Crain and Brian Crain, individuals and successors-in-interest to Crain/Hallas Corporation (hereafter collectively referred to as the Vertis Group)1 petition for review of an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (the PUC), granting in part and denying in part the exceptions filed by the Vertis Group in response to a decision from an administrative law judge (ALJ). Further, the PUC order followed the recommendation of the ALJ and dismissed a complaint filed by the Vertis Group against Du-quesne Light Company (Duquesne Light).
The Vertis Group operated a business at 846 Fourth Avenue, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, from 1994 to 1997. This business performed two types of service. The first was a scheduling service providing qualified physicians to conduct independent medical examinations with respect to claims for workers’ compensation benefits and claims under other insurance policies. The second was medical bill re-pricing services with explanation of benefits statements to ensure compliance with workers’ compensation and other pricing guidelines. In providing these services, the Vertis Group was heavily dependent on computer equipment and a specially-designed scheduling software program.2 The Vertis [392]*392Group utilized this equipment and software in conjunction with data-entry clerks. Duquesne Light provided the Vertís Group with commercial electric service at its facility in Coraopolis.
The Vertís Group immediately began experiencing hardware and software problems such as data scrambling, hardware malfunctions and “blow-outs” at its facility. The Vertís Group alleged that it also experienced power surges, power drops and harmonic distortions at its facility, which in turn caused physical damage to computer equipment, deletion of data and, ultimately, a loss of customers. The Vertís Group notified Duquesne Light of its problems and a technician was dispatched to the location on May 16, 1995, to check the connections on the nearest transformer and to measure the incoming voltage. The voltage measured within the range required by PUC regulations and Duquesne Light’s tariffs. On the same day, the technician installed a circular voltage chart at the facility to monitor incoming voltage. The chart remained at the facility until May 24, 1995. Upon reviewing the chart, however, the recorded voltage again measured within the range required by the aforementioned regulations and tariff.
Nevertheless, on May 18, 1995, the Ver-tís Group again complained to Duquesne Light and another technician was sent to the facility. This technician also found the voltage to be within the required range. Despite this finding, Duquesne Light arranged to replace all of the connections at the transformer servicing the facility and offered to test the voltage with a BMI Power Quality Analyzer (BMI)3 if the problems persisted. These connections were indeed changed the next day, May 19, 1995. On June 5, 1995, the Vertís Group informed Duquesne Light that it had again experienced voltage problems and equipment damage. On June 8, 1995, the parties met to discuss the problems and a Duquesne Light engineer, Timothy Bray (Bray), installed a BMI device at the facility. Numerous investigations were conducted at the facility through August 2, 1995, and numerous conversations were held between representatives of the Vertís Group and Duquesne Light, including Bray and Clifford Blashford (Blashford), another Duquesne Light engineer and account representative.
During the course of the investigation, the BMI device recorded and later measured a number of transient voltage spikes at the facility.4 On June 13, 1995, Blash-ford and Bray met with representatives of the Vertís Group, who had shut off the air conditioning and electric hot water tanks for study purposes. During the time that these systems were shut down, the BMI only recorded one disturbance overnight. Blashford and Bray informed the Vertís Group that even common office equipment, such as a refrigerator or water cooler, could cause the transients. Further, due to the fact that these transients contained extremely small amounts of energy and lasted only microseconds, Blashford and Bray indicated that the transients were insufficient to damage computer equipment. They recommended that the Vertís Group install three levels of surge suppression, including an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) to protect their equipment and computer system. The Vertís Group installed the levels of surge sup[393]*393pression but did not utilize UPS equipment.
Contrary to these indications, however, and in order to satisfy the concerns of the Vertís Group’s customers, Blashford provided the Vertís Group with a letter dated June 13, 1995, noting that the facility was experiencing “800-500V voltage transients,” which he described as “an abnormal condition” and which were “sufficient to damage sensitive data processing equipment such as computers, and network servers.” 5 (R.R. at 1715a).
Duquesne Light thereafter investigated the entire circuit serving the facility but found no evidence of any problems. All of the tests revealed voltages within PUC regulations and evidenced no problems with the Duquesne Light distribution system. Additionally, Duquesne Light noted no other customer on the same circuit as the Vertís Group as having similar complaints of voltage problems. Nonetheless, the problems at the Vertís Group continued and eventually it ceased operations.
The Vertís Group then sold the building in Coraopolis to an engineering company, Lennon Smith Souleret Engineering (LSSE), during which sale the Vertís Group never disclosed to the buyer any electrical problems. Upon occupation of the building, LSSE experienced data corruption problems which it attributed to a computer network that was substandard and improperly wired and not to any electrical problems at the site.6 LSSE thereafter fixed the networking problems and experienced no further data corruption problems.
The Vertís Group proceeded to initiate a civil action against Duquesne Light in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) with the filing of a complaint alleging breach of contract, breach of implied and express warranties and negligence. The complaint was filed in November of 1997. Duquesne Light filed an answer essentially denying the allegations of the complaint. The Vertís Group demanded a jury trial. The case was placed at issue by Duquesne Light in January of 1998 and was scheduled for trial in late January 1999.
However, on January 12, 1999, Du-quesne Light filed a motion to bifurcate and transfer to the PUC for a determination of liability. In its motion, Duquesne Light indicated that the complex and technical claims relating to the reasonableness, adequacy and sufficiency of its electric service needed the expertise of the PUC. Duquesne Light further indicated that the PUC had exclusive jurisdiction over such issues as compliance with its tariff. The Vertís Group filed an answer asking the trial court to deny the motion and both parties briefed the issue.
In the meantime, on January 25, 1999, the Vertís Group filed an amended complaint adding a count of strict liability against Duquesne Light. That same day, the Vertís Group also filed a motion to postpone the trial, only a couple of days away, as a result of the amended complaint and inevitable preliminary objections. By order dated March 17,1999, the trial court denied Duquesne Light’s motion to bifurcate the liability issue and transfer it to the PUC. Thereafter, Duquesne Light filed an answer to the amended complaint.
[394]*394Due to a trial backlog, the case was continued until the September 1999 trial list and later to the January 2000 trial list. Nonetheless, prior to trial, Duquesne Light filed a motion with the trial court for reconsideration of its earlier denial of the bifurcation/transfer motion. Upon reconsideration, by order dated September 30, 1999, the trial court granted said motion, vacated its March 17, 1999, denial and transferred the case to the PUC for a determination of all liability issues.
In May of 2000, the Vertis Group proceeded to file its complaint with the PUC, incorporating its amended complaint previously filed with the trial court. However, the complaint filed with the PUC contained an additional allegation that Du-quesne Light had violated Section 1501 of the Public Utility Code (the Code), 66 Pa. C.S. § 1501, by (1) failing to furnish and maintain adequate, efficient, safe and reasonable services and facilities;. (2) failing to make all repairs, changes and improvements in or to such services and facilities as were necessary and proper for the accommodation, convenience and safety of its customers; (3) failing to provide service which was reasonably continuous and without unreasonable interruptions or delay; and (4) failing to provide service and facilities in conformity with the regulations and orders of the PUC. Duquesne Light filed a response to this complaint again essentially denying the allegations therein.
The matter was thereafter assigned to the ALJ for hearings. Numerous hearings were held in September and November of 2001 as well as January of 2002. At these hearings, both parties presented numerous witnesses and exhibits. Following the completion of the hearings and submission of briefs, the ALJ issued an initial decision and order recommending that the Vertis Group’s complaint be denied. The ALJ concluded that: the Vertis Group’s right to a trial by jury had not been abridged; the Vertis Group had failed to meet its burden of proving that Duquesne Light supplied inadequate, insufficient, unsafe or unreasonable electrical service; the Vertis Group had failed to meet its burden of proving that Duquesne Light conducted an investigation of its complaints in an inadequate, inefficient, unsafe or unreasonable manner; and the Vertis Group had failed to meet its burden of proving that Duquesne Light had failed to abide by its tariff requirements for supplying electrical energy to the premises.
The Vertis Group thereafter filed twenty-six legal and factual exceptions to the ALJ’s initial decision alleging that the ALJ was mistaken in his application of the legal issues to this case and misapprehended or overlooked important and substantial facts presented in evidence. Duquesne Light filed a reply to the exceptions. The PUC ultimately issued an opinion and order dated February 24, 2003, essentially denying the Vertis Group’s exceptions, adopting the ALJ’s initial decision and dismissing the Vertis Group’s complaint.7 The PUC concluded, as did the ALJ, that the Vertis Group failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it experienced substantial damage to its computer equipment or that power quality issues originating with Duquesne Light’s electrical service caused corrupted data or damage to said equipment.8
[395]*395The PUC noted that the quality of the testimony submitted on behalf of the Ver-tís Group paled as compared to the expert and fact testimony submitted on behalf of Duquesne Light on the issues of power quality, computer hardware and electrical service. The Vertís Group then filed a petition for review with this Court. On April 14, 2003, Duquesne Light filed a notice of intervention with this Court.
As the Vertís Group’s appeal was pending, the PUC filed a motion on September 30, 2003, to quash the Vertís Group’s petition for review insofar as it seeks to appeal the trial court’s bifurcation order. The PUC alleged, inter alia, that the trial court’s bifurcation order was interlocutory and that review of that order should await referral back to the trial court and the issuance of its decision and order. After such issuance, the PUC alleged that the Superior Court would have jurisdiction to review the bifurcation order. The Vertís Group thereafter filed a reply to the PUC’s motion alleging, inter alia, that this Court has jurisdiction to review the propriety of the trial court’s bifurcation order.
We begin by addressing this motion. Although not specifically stating that the appellate courts have jurisdiction to review such orders, we note that our Supreme and Superior Courts as well as this Court have previously engaged in such review prior to the issuance of a lower court’s decision and order. See Elkin v. Bell Telephone Company, 491 Pa. 123, 420 A.2d 371 (1980); Poorbaugh v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 666 A.2d 744 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995), petitions for allowance of appeal denied, 544 Pa. 678, 678 A.2d 367 (1996), 548 Pa. 662, 698 A.2d 69 (1995); Optimum Image, Inc. v. Philadelphia Electric Company, 410 Pa.Super. 475, 600 A.2d 553 (1991). Moreover, we believe it would be illogical and a waste of judicial resources for an appellate court such as this Court to consider the merits of a PUC decision and order,9 but not consider the propriety of a trial court’s order directing bifurcation in the first place.10
We next address the Vertís Group’s argument on appeal that the trial court erred as a matter of law in bifurcating the case.11 We disagree.
The issue of bifurcation encompasses a discussion of what has been referred to as the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, recognizing that both courts and administrative agencies must each play a role in the adjudication of certain matters.12 Our Su[396]*396preme Court discussed this doctrine in detail in Elkin, stating as follows:
To accommodate the role of the court with that of the agency, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction (or primary exclusive jurisdiction) has been developed. Essentially, the doctrine creates a workable relationship between the courts and administrative agencies wherein, in appropriate circumstances, the courts can have the benefit of the agency’s views on issues within the agency’s competence.
The doctrine serves several purposes, chief of which are the benefits to be derived by making use of the agency’s special experience and expertise in complex areas with which judges and juries have little familiarity. Another important consideration is the statutory purpose in the creation of the agency-the powers granted by the legislature and the powers withheld. And, another fundamental concern is the need to promote consistency and uniformity in certain areas of administrative policy. It has been noted that these purposes are frequently served in, and the doctrine of primary jurisdiction principally applicable to, the controversies concerning the so-called “regulated industries.”
It is equally important to realize what the doctrine is not-it is not simply a polite gesture of deference to the agency seeking an advisory opinion wherein the court is free to ignore the agency’s determination. Rather, once the court properly refers a matter or a specific issue to the agency, that agency’s determination is binding upon the court and the parties (subject, of course, to appellate review through normal channels), [13] and is riot subject to collateral attack in the pending court proceeding.
Once the administrative tribunal has determined the issues within its jurisdiction, then the temporarily suspended civil litigation may continue, guided in scope and direction by the nature and outcome of the agency determination.
Elkin, 491 Pa. at 131-134, 420 A.2d at 376-377 (citations omitted) (footnotes omitted).
Further, the Court in Elkin enunciated the following test to be applied to determine whether bifurcation is appropriate:
[Wjhere the subject matter is within an agency’s jurisdiction and where it is a complex matter requiring special competence, with which the judge or jury would not or could not be familiar, the proper procedure is for the court to refer the matter to the appropriate agency. Also weighing in the consideration should be the need for uniformity and consistency in agency policy and the legislative intent. Where, on the other hand, the matter is not one peculiarly within the agency’s area of expertise, but is one which the courts or jury are equally well-suited to determine, the court must not abdicate its responsibility. In such cases, it would be wasteful to employ the bifurcated procedure of referral, as no appreciable benefits would be forthcoming.
[397]*397Elkin, 491 Pa. at 134-135, 420 A.2d at 377 (footnote omitted).
In applying this test, we must look at the complaint, or amended complaint as in this case, to determine if bifurcation was appropriate. In its amended complaint filed with the trial court, the Vertis Group alleged that as its computer equipment was “quite sophisticated and sensitive to voltage fluctuations and other power interruptions such as voltage spikes ... it was essential that electric power of a consistent voltage (within the legal voltage range, i.e. 120/20 V +1-5%), and harmonic level be delivered at all times.” (Amended Complaint, Paragraph 13, R.R. at 295a).
Additionally, the Vertis Group alleged that Duquesne Light “agreed to supply electric power ... within the legal voltage range, i.e., 120/208V +/-5%, and at acceptable harmonic levels, in accord with its published tariffs.” (Amended Complaint, Paragraph 27, R.R. at 299a). Instead of supplying such power, the Vertis Group indicated that the power it received “was not of merchantable quality in that, inter alia, it did not pass objection within the trade under the contract description, was not of fair average equality, was not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such power is used, did not run within variations permitted by the Agreement, and was not otherwise acceptable.”14 (Amended Complaint, Paragraph 33, R.R. at 300a).
Further, the Vertis Group alleged that Duquesne Light “through its published tariffs, advertising and other promotional and/or sales activities, represented, promised and warranted to Plaintiffs that it would delivery [sic] a safe and reliable source of electric power to Vertis’ Coraop-olis location_” (Amended Complaint, Paragraph 38, R.R. at 301a). Moreover, the Vertis Group alleged that Duquesne Light “refused or was unable to prevent or correct such problems.” (Amended Complaint, Paragraph 45, R.R. at 302a).
As the allegations of the Vertis Group’s amended complaint appear to address subject matter of a complex nature, as well as such issues as Duquesne Light’s published tariffs, legal voltage range and the reasonableness, safety and quality of the electrical power provided by Duquesne Light, i.e., issues within the exclusive province of the PUC, we cannot say that the trial court erred as a matter of law in bifurcating the case.15
Next, the Vertis Group argues that the PUC erred as a matter of law by precluding it of its right to a trial by jury with [398]*398respect to its common law claims. Again, we disagree.
Article 1, Section 6 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]rial by jury shall be as heretofore, and the right thereof remain inviolate.” In addition, Section 901 of the Code addresses a party’s right to a trial by jury, providing, in pertinent part, as follows:
Nothing in this part shall be construed to deprive any party, upon any judicial review of the proceedings and orders of the commission, of the right to trial by jury of any issue of fact raised thereby or therein, where such right is secured either by the Constitution of Pennsylvania or the Constitution of the United States, but in every such case such right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.
66 Pa.C.S. § 901.
Our Supreme Court has interpreted Article 1, Section 6 of the Pennsylvania Constitution as only preserving the right to trial by jury in those cases where it existed at the time the Constitution was adopted in 1790. See Commonwealth v. One (1) 1984 Z-28 Camaro Coupe, 580 Pa. 528, 610 A.2d 36 (1992); see also W.J. Dillner Transfer Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 191 Pa.Super. 136, 155 A.2d 429 (1959).16 Jury trials are not available in proceedings created by statute unless the proceeding has a common law basis or unless the statute expressly or impliedly so provides. One (1) 1984 Z-28 Camaro Coupe.
From these interpretations, a three-part test has evolved to determine whether a party is entitled to a jury trial. Id.; Wertz v. Chapman Township, 559 Pa. 630, 741 A.2d 1272 (1999). First, the court looks to see if there is a statutory requirement for a jury trial in the case. Second, the court inquires as to whether, with respect to the proceedings before the court at the time, jury trials were required in 1790. Finally, if jury trials were required, the court inquires as to whether there was a common law basis for the proceeding.17
In this case, there is no dispute that the statute at issue, i.e., the Code, does not expressly or impliedly require a trial by jury. With respect to the second prong of the test enunciated above, we note, as did the ALJ, that regulated public utility service did not exist at the time of the adoption of the Pennsylvania Constitution in 1790. Since regulated public utility service did not exist in 1790, the Vertís Group was unable to point to any similar proceedings in 1790 to which a right to a jury trial would apply.18 As no jury trial was required, we need not reach the third prong of the test, i.e., whether there was a common law basis for the proceeding.
Next, the Vertís Group argues that the PUC erred as a matter of law and exceeded its statutory jurisdiction and jurisdictional authority by purporting to adjudicate all of its common law claims. Once more, we disagree.
[399]*399The PUC is a creature of statute. As such, “it has only those powers which are expressly conferred upon it by the Legislature and those powers which arise by necessary implication.” Feingold, 477 Pa. at 8, 383 A.2d at 794. The Code has placed a broad range of subject matter under the control of the PUC. For example, Section 1501 of the Code renders the PUC responsible for ensuring the adequacy, efficiency, safety and reasonableness of public utility services, facilities and/or rates.
Additionally, Section 1504 of the Code enables the PUC to prescribe “just and reasonable standards, classifications, regulations and practices to be furnished, imposed, observed and followed by any or all public utilities.” 66 Pa.C.S. § 1504(1). Under this Section, the PUC may prescribe “adequate and reasonable standards for the measurement of quantity, quality, pressure, initial voltage or other condition pertaining to the supply of the service of any and all public utilities.” See 66 Pa. C.S. § 1504(2). The PUC may also prescribe reasonable rules, regulations, specifications and standards relating to “the examination and testing of ... service” as well as “the accuracy of all meters and appliances for measurement.” See 66 Pa. C.S. § 1504(3), (4).
Nevertheless, as noted above, despite the PUC’s extensive statutory responsibilities, the courts of common pleas have traditionally retained original jurisdiction to entertain suits for damages against public utilities. See Elkin; Feingold. The courts of common pleas have also retained jurisdiction over common law claims. This issue is addressed in Section 103(c) of the Code, which provides that “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.” 66 Pa.C.S. § 103(c).
We have reviewed the thorough and lengthy decisions of both the ALJ and the PUC. Contrary to the Vertís Group’s argument, our review of these decisions fails to reveal any instance whereby the ALJ or the PUC purported to rule upon its common law claims. At the very most, the ALJ and the PUC indicated that the fundamental premise underlying each count of the Vertís Group’s amended complaint was the allegation that Duquesne Light failed to provide power that was adequate, efficient, safe, reasonable and in accord with its published tariffs.
Both the ALJ and the PUC consistently indicated that it was only addressing this allegation, an allegation within its exclusive jurisdiction. In fact, the PUC notes that its opinion, as well as the initial decision of the ALJ, only addressed those matters expressly reserved to the PUC in the Code. Furthermore, on at least two separate occasions, the PUC indicated that the application of its findings and determinations is a matter within the purview of the trial court. Thus, we cannot say that the PUC erred as a matter of law and exceeded its statutory jurisdiction and jurisdictional authority.19
Accordingly, the order of the PUC is affirmed.
[400]*400
ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2003, the order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission is hereby affirmed.