How does SUB respond to challenges to a policy of orderly transition?

  • I’ve heard SUB has sued EPUD. Is this true?
    SUB has independently asked the Lane County Circuit Court for an opinion on whether the legal avenue it is considering is viable. The mechanism for this is called a validation action. EPUD was notified in the process and elected to participate in the proceeding.
  • EPUD says “General Manager Kyle Roadman provided background on Springfield Utility Board’s attempt to illegally take over a portion of EPUD’s service territory”.
    SUB filing the validation action was entirely legal. It was not illegal.
  • EPUD states “Help us stop this frivolous lawsuit from continuing” and calls SUB’s actions “illegal and wrong.”
    SUB pursued a validation action. SUB disagrees that actions taken for the betterment of Springfield – including reliability and emergency response – are frivolous. SUB’s position is that advocating for Springfield’s utility interests – and the interests of all our customers – is the right thing to do.
  • EPUD states “The current area in question is in and around East Springfield, but SUB has made it clear they want to take as much of EPUD’s territory as they can over time.”
    SUB has expressed interest in the area within the Springfield UGB determined by the City Council. That area is approximately 1.03 square miles. Due to topography and technical considerations, SUB did offer to acquire approximately 1.06 square miles.
  • EPUD has expressed support on comments stating that SUB should consider another path forward.
    SUB is encouraged that EPUD appears to be open to joining SUB at the negotiating table. Our intended outcome is to ensure all Springfield residents, including those annexed into the City, are in the best position to benefit from the municipal water and power services SUB provides. We seek a mutual, amicable understanding that meets the needs of both parties, and SUB remains open to communication and collaboration on this issue.