This month, the Bend City Council opted to move forward with its plan to charge a fee to developers putting natural gas systems into new homes — a move aimed at meeting the city’s carbon emissions goals and reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
There was no good timing for this.
As a whole, Oregonians’ economic picture is not rosy. According to the Oregon State Treasurer’s Financial Wellness Scorecard released in March, three-fourths of Oregonians are feeling increasing cost-of-living pressures, which has led to record amounts of household debt. Bankruptcy filings went up 25% in 2025, according to the scorecard. And local nonprofits are seeing the effects, with rising demand for help with energy bills, food, childcare and affordable housing. The City already raised fees on its utility bills this past year, and this new fee is likely to make homes in Bend less affordable going forward.
As it pertains to their political careers, the five councilors who voted “Yes” are sure to hear an earful the next time they run for office (which for some is this November). The one who voted no — Megan Perkins — expressed some of the concerns we listed above in her comments before the vote, saying the unintended consequences may very well be an increase in costs.
Costs are indeed rising, and yet, in mulling the pros and cons, we still believe moving away from natural gas in the city was the right direction. Electricity, in theory, doesn’t have to be trucked in the form of dangerous liquified natural gas, or perhaps worse, conveyed through gigantic pipelines, like the one that currently divides Stevens Road and Stevens Ranch. We can clearly imagine a future where we burn less coal and other fossil fuels for electricity and instead harness more of Central Oregon’s abundant sun to produce more local energy.
Politicians and regular people alike spend a lot of time talking about wildfire — how to prevent it and what to do if it comes — but few of us actually want to pay the cost when it comes to doing something about it. Producing less carbon is doing something about it, even if it’s only on the scale of a town of 100,000 or so people.
The last few years, we as Americans have had our national conversation turned away from climate change; replaced by whatever fancy the President picks up next. With the most recent amusement — Iran — we’ve perhaps seen a glimmer of conversation turning back to the planet’s existential threat. With crude oil locked up in the Strait of Hormuz and gas prices high, people have been thinking more about energy efficiency and producing energy that doesn’t involve cruises into conflict zones.
When the Bend City Council began to talk about the notion of charging a fee for the installation of natural gas, we were not instantly convinced. We get too many letters to the editor addressing affordability to ignore that glaring concern. But timing and context matter here. Timing-wise, the Council still has a Democratic supermajority and thus has the political freedom to make some big moves. In terms of context, the current conflict over oil and the high costs of filling up the tank also soften the issue a bit. The U.S. may produce most of its own natural gas for home heating and cooling, but seeing the transportation of oil become a bargaining chip in our current global conflict certainly has the potential to get people thinking more about alternatives.
Even after this vote, no one is preventing Bendites from installing natural gas in their homes. But going forward, if you want to do so, you’re just going to have to pay to pollute.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
