Opinion ID: 2764305
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: ¶29 We conclude that the language of § 69-5-105(1), MCA, unambiguously grants priority to Sheridan because it had the line closest to Cahill and the distribution system capacity to serve Cahill. Based on that finding, we determine that MDU did not add Cahill to its service territory pursuant to Title 69, chapter 5, when it extended single-phase construction power to Cahill in September 2011. We decline to resort to an examination of legislative history where the statute in question is unambiguous. ¶30 For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the District Court did not err in finding that Sheridan has the right to serve Cahill under the priority provisions of the MTIA. ¶31 Affirmed. /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT We Concur: /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA /S/ PATRICIA COTTER /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ JIM RICE 10