In Northern Area Personal Care Home Administrators Association v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare, 899 A.2d 1182 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) it was alleged that the Department of Public Welfare's (DPW) regulations were problematic and DPW alleged that the Association had to exhaust its administrative remedies before filing a petition with this Court. The Court relied on our Supreme Court's decision in Arsenal Coal Company v. Department of Environmental Resources, 505 Pa. 198, 477 A.2d 1333 (1984), where the Court explained that this court had original jurisdiction in a case seeking pre-enforcement review of a substantial challenge to the validity of regulations promulgated by an administrative agency. A remedy by statute was inadequate when it gave the agency the power to hold a hearing and issue an adjudication only after an order or decision had been issued. Our Supreme Court further provided guidelines as to when a challenged regulation could be heard by this Court without first exhausting other administrative remedies: Where the effect of the challenged regulations upon the industry regulated is direct and immediate, the hardship thus presented suffices to establish the justiciability of the challenge in advance of enforcement. We believe that the asserted impact of the regulations in the instant case is sufficiently direct and immediate to render the issue appropriate for judicial review, the lengthy process by which the validity of the regulations will be addressed on a basis of application to the litigant would result in ongoing uncertainty in the day to day business operations of an industry which the General Assembly clearly intended to protect from unnecessary upheaval. Arsenal Coal company, 505 Pa. 210, 477 A.2d at 1339. Northern Area Personal Care Home, 899 A.2d at 1187.