TONGUE RIVER ELECTRIC COOP INC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-233 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA TONGUE R I V E R E L E C T R I C COOPERATIVE, a M o n t a n a corporation, INC., P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , MONTANA POWER COMPANY, a M o n t a n a corporation, D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of R o s e b u d H o n o r a b l e A l f r e d B . C o a t e , Judge p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For Appellant: Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, T o o l e & D i e t r i c h , B i l l i n g s , Montana J a c k R a m i r e z argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana John W. R o s s , B u t t e , M o n t a n a F o r Respondent: C h a r l e s W. J a r d i n e argued, M i l e s C i t y , M o n t a n a Submitted: Decided: Filed: O c t o b e r 20, November 25, N O V 2, 5 1981 V Clerk 1981 1981 J u s t i c e John C . Sheehy d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. Mr. T h i s i s an a p p e a l from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Rosebud County, where judgment w a s e n t e r e d a g a i n s t Montana Power Company t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t Tongue R i v e r E l e c t r i c C o o p e r a t i v e had t h e r i g h t t o p r o v i d e e l e c t r i c a l s e r v i c e s t o a s u b d i v i s i o n l o c a t e d i n Rosebud County, Montana, under s e c t i o n 69-5-105, MCA, and t h a t Montana Power d i d n o t q u a l i f y t o p r o v i d e s u c h e l e c t r i c s e r v i c e s under t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 69-5-107, MCA. W e r e v e r s e t h e D i s t r i c t Court. .The s u b d i v i s i o n i s l o c a t e d i n S e c t i o n 33, Township 2 North, Range 4 1 E a s t , Rosebud County, Montana, where h o u s i n g i s b e i n g developed by t h e Montana Power Company a s a p a r t o f t h e t o w n s i t e e x p a n s i o n of C o l s t r i p . A t t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g , Montana Power owned 80 a c r e s l o c a t e d i n s e c t i o n 33, and was i n t h e p r o c e s s of p u r c h a s i n g from B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h e r n , I n c . an a d d i t i o n a l 504.75 a c r e s i n t h e s a m e s e c t i o n . Montana Power was a l r e a d y d e v e l o p i n g h o u s i n g i n t h e 80 a c r e s f i r s t p u r c h a s e d , and e l e c t r i c a l s e r v i c e had been i n s t a l l e d . The s u b d i v i s i o n i s r e l a t e d t o t h e C o l s t r i p power p r o d u c t i o n p r o j e c t s , and was u n d e r t a k e n f o r t h e purpose o f p r o v i d i n g h o u s i n g f o r Montana Power employees and o t h e r s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e development of t h e C o l s t r i p power complex. Power eclployees Montana r e c e i v e a d i s c o u n t on e l e c t r i c s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d by t h e i r employer. A s of t h e d a t e of t h e h e a r i n g , 4 2 townhouses and 1 3 s i n g l e - f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s had been completed. The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t would t a k e Tongue R i v e r 6 months t o 1 y e a r t o p r o v i d e t h e e l e c t r i c s e r v i c e . Tongue R i v e r c o n t e n d s t h a t Montana Power i s s t a r t i n g t h e s u b d i v i s i o n and p l a c i n g r e s i d e n c e s and townhouses t h e r e o n f o r t h e purpose of s e l l i n g and r e n t i n g them. -2- The District Court found that Tongue River had the closest line to the subdivision, crossing a portion of section 33, which now provides service to a business estabblished on that section, outside the town limits of Colstrip, and that the same line extends north to supply services to other customers. It found that Montana Power owns the unincorporated town of Colstrip, coal mines, lands containing coal around the town, the generating plants, and is in the process of constructing additional plants and other property necessary for its generating operation. The District Court found that Colstrip is a rural area that does not have sufficient housing for Montana Power employees and construction workers and for that reason, the company started the construction of a subdivision to provide additional housing for its employees and construction workers on section 33. The subdivision is separated from Colstrip by a state highway. The Territorial Integrity Act of 1971, section 69-5101, et seq., MCA, was the result of a settlement of longstanding disputes between the investor-owned utilities and the electrical cooperatives over which electrical supplier would have the right to provide electrical service to new consumers and customers. Succinctly stated, under the act, the electric supplier having a line nearest the "premises" of nonindustrial or noncommercial new consumers has the right to provide the electric service. Section 69-5-105(1), MCA. The nearest electric supplier to such new consumers is determined on the shortest straight line which can be drawn from the conductor nearest the "premises" to the nearest permanent portion of the premises to be served. Montana- Dakota Util. v. Lower Yellowstone (1978), 178 Mont. 427, 433, 585 P.2d 626, 630; section 69-5-105(2), MCA. The act c o n t a i n s an e x c e p t i o n , however, w i t h r e g a r d t o i n d u s t r i a l , commercial, o r o t h e r consumers, t h a t " n o t h i n g . . . shall r e s t r i c t t h e r i g h t of a n e l e c t r i c s u p p l i e r t o f u r n i s h e l e c t r i c s e r v i c e t o any p r o p e r t y owned by t h e e l e c t r i c supplier." S e c t i o n 69-5-107, MCA. I n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 69-5-107, MCA, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t concluded: ". . . T h i s C o u r t h o l d s t h a t ' p r e m i s e s ' and ' p r o p e r t y ' d o n o t have t h e same meaning. ' P r e m i s e s , ' a s used i n t h i s A c t , d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y mean p r o p e r t y I t means p r o p e r t y owned by a n e l e c t r i c s u p p l i e r . which i s owned o r used by an e l e c t r i c s u p p l i e r f o r commercial o r i n d u s t r i a l usage as d e f i n e d by t h e A c t i n s e c t i o n 69-5-102(7), MCA, 1979, which p r o v i d e s : " ' ( 7 ) " P r e m i s e s " means a b u i l d i n g , r e s i d e n c e , s t r u c t u r e , o r f a c i l i t y t o which e l e c t r i c i t y i s b e i n g o r i s t o be f u r n i s h e d ; p r o v i d e d , t h a t two o r more b u i l d i n g s , s t r u c t u r e s , o r f a c i l i t i e s which a r e l o c a t e d on one t r a c t o r c o n t i g u o u s t r a c t s o f l a n d and are u t i l i z e d by one e l e c t r i c consumer f o r f a r m i n g , b u s i n e s s , commercial, i n d u s t r i a l , i n s t i t u t i o n a l , governmental, o r t r a i l e r c o u r t p u r p o s e s s h a l l t o g e t h e r c o n s t i t u t e one premises, except t h a t any such b u i l d i n g , s t r u c t u r e , o r f a c i l i t y , o t h e r t h a n a t r a i l e r c o u r t , s h a l l n o t , t o g e t h e r w i t h any o t h e r b u i l d i n g , s t r u c t u r e , o r f a c i l i t y , c o n s t i t u t e one p r e m i s e s i f t h e e l e c t r i c s e r v i c e t o it i s s e p a r a t e l y m e t e r e d and t h e c h a r g e s f o r such s e r v i c e are c a l c u l a t e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y of c h a r g e s f o r s e r v i c e t o any o t h e r building, structure, o r f a c i l i t y . ' "To h o l d t h a t s e c t i o n 69-5-107 be g i v e n i t s l i t e r a l e f f e c t would d e s t r o y t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e a c t i n t h i s case." Thus, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , i n i n t e r p r e t i n g s e c t i o n 69-5107, which s t a t e s t h a t a n e l e c t r i c s u p p l i e r s h a l l have t h e r i g h t t o f u r n i s h e l e c t r i c s e r v i c e t o "any p r o p e r t y " owned by t h e e l e c t r i c s u p p l i e r , l i m i t e d t h e t e r m "any p r o p e r t y " t o commercial o r i n d u s t r i a l usage by t h e e l e c t r i c s u p p l i e r . The i n s e r t i o n o f t h a t l i m i t e d meaning t o t h e t e r m "any p r o p e r t y " c o n t r a v e n e s t h e r o l e of c o u r t s i n i n t e r p r e t i n g statutes. T h a t r o l e i s d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 1-2-101, which s t a t e s : MCA, " I n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a s t a t u t e , t h e o f f i c e o f t h e judge i s s i m p l y t o a s c e r t a i n and d e c l a r e what i s i n t e r m s o r i n s u b s t a n c e c o n t a i n e d t h e r e i n , n o t t o i n s e r t what h a s been o m i t t e d o r t o o m i t what h a s been i n s e r t e d . . ." The t e r m "any p r o p e r t y " i s n o t ambiguous. and c e r t a i n . It is plain Where t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e c a n b e d e t e r m i n e d from t h e p l a i n meaning of t h e words u s e d , t h e c o u r t s may n o t go f u r t h e r and a p p l y any o t h e r means o f interpretation. Haker v. Southwestern Ry. Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 364, 369, 578 P.2d 724, 727; S t a t e e x r e l . Huffman v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 154 Mont. 201, 204, 461 P.2d 847, 849. By s t a t u t e , when t h e t e r m " p r o p e r t y " i s used, i t means r e a l and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y . Section 1-1-205(3), MCA. That code d e f i n i t i o n i s b i n d i n g on t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and on u s : "Whenever t h e meaning o f a word o r p h r a s e i s d e f i n e d i n any p a r t of t h i s code, such d e f i n i t i o n i s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e same word o r p h r a s e wherever i t o c c u r s , e x c e p t where a contrary i n t e n t i o n p l a i n l y appears." S e c t i o n 1-2-107, MCA. W e f i n d and h o l d under t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e t h a t Montana Power i s e n t i t l e d t o t h e b e n e f i t of t h e e x c e p t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n s e c t i o n 69-5-107, MCA, t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t it may s u p p l y "any p r o p e r t y " owned by it. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s r e v e r s e d . Justice W e Concur: Chief J u s t i c e

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.