Is SJ City gaslighting its citizens on electrification plan?

Why would SJ residents believe the City is considering an electrification mandate in all existing buildings? It could be because the latest electrification plan from the Dept of Environmental Services says it will, despite unconvincing denials from staff and council. A quick analysis of the plan's statements reveal the weakness of the city's disclaimers.

Elimination, not phasing out

Page 13 of the 156-page Electrification plan says:

“In order to reach our ambitious Climate Smart goals [achieve carbon neutrality on a 2030 timeline], we will need to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in buildings, primarily natural gas, and replace them with clean and efficient electric technologies--a process called building electrification.”

Analysis: Note the phrase “we will need to eliminate." The "need" part suggests a forced requirement, not a voluntary or negotiated act. And that term "eliminate" gives the game away. The City doesn't say "phase out" or "incrementally get rid of or "partially." They say "eliminate." Which means: "a complete removal."

Necessary requirements

Page 47 of the plan says:

“Because voluntary action by property owners will not be sufficient to fully electrify San José’s buildings by the City’s 2030 carbon neutrality goal date, new laws that require electrification for every building sector will be necessary.”

Analysis: "Require." "Every building sector." Residents can hardly be blamed for believing that the city's plan actually means what it says. It doesn't say it will request electrification "upon replacement." It just says it will be a necessary requirement--aka a mandate-- for every sector. For everybody.

Using force or pressure

Page 55 of the plan says:

"{N}ew policy requirements that compel building owners to make upgrades to their building will be necessary to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030..."

Analysis: City staff comes clean here when admit that they will "compel" building owners to to switch from gas to electric. Not ask. Not incent. Compel. Which means "to bring about by means of force or pressure."

Conclusion: To suggest that this document is not--at the very least--seriously considering a citywide electrification mandate is to misread its plain meaning. To aggressively suggest that it's saying something else is the willful presentation of false information. Which is, ironically enough, the modern definition of "gaslighting."

Full text of the plan here:

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity