It has been my experience that, when an advocacy group resorts to promoting mass hysteria with doomsday predictions, it’s a clear sign its arguments are on shaky ground.

Al Hartmann/The Salt Lake Tribune via AP

Question 3 on Nevada’s ballot this November asks citizens if they want greater consumer choice in the energy market. For an example of what this might look like if passed and implemented, go to www.choosetexaspower.org and type in ZIP code 77001 (or any other ZIP code in Texas).

The Nevada initiative passed overwhelmingly in 2016. But because it’s a constitutional amendment, voters must approve it a second time before it becomes law.

In 2016, I opposed the measure. Not because of any opposition to extending greater consumer choice, but because this is an issue that should be dealt with by the Legislature, not enshrined in our constitution.

Alas, the Legislature — under complete Democrat control in the 2017 session — irresponsibly punted. Lawmakers did nothing. Went AWOL. Profiles in pudding.

And because the people’s representatives took a powder on this important issue, the people have no choice but to take the matter into their own hands.

Indeed, while I’m still weighing the pros and cons of having the measure inscribed in the constitution, I’m seriously considering reversing my position. And the “No on Question 3” folks aren’t making it any easier to remain a “no.”

It has been my experience that, when an advocacy group resorts to promoting mass hysteria with doomsday predictions, it’s a clear sign its arguments are on shaky ground.

Let me give you some examples taken directly from the No on 3’s website:

■ It’s a “deeply flawed” measure.

■ It’s a “risky experiment.”

■ It’s “especially risky.”

■ It’ll result in “skyrocketing rates” and “rolling blackouts.”

■ It’ll take “at least four years” to “undo the damage.”

■ It’ll result in “years of complicated lawsuits” that will cost Nevada taxpayers “millions.”

■ Consumer complaints will “spike.”

■ We will “lose control” of our “energy future” to California.

■ It’ll cost Nevadans “billions of dollars” in “higher electricity rates and higher taxes.”

■ It would be “very damaging to Nevada’s renewable energy future.”

Armageddon! Run for your lives! Oy vey.

And then there’s the Public Utilities Commission.

The PUC board of bureaucrat appointees — in other words, not elected by Nevada citizens — oversees the government regulation of energy. And as the Review-Journal recently pointed out in a Thursday editorial, the PUC’s authority (and general reason for existing) “would almost certainly be diminished under a reconfigured energy landscape” if Question 3 passes.

So the fact that the PUC has drafted a taxpayer-funded “report” trashing Question 3 — the RJ characterizes it as a “thinly veiled campaign manifesto that predicts all manner of disaster if Nevadans are one day free to choose their own electricity provider” — should come as no surprise.

But considering the source, neither should we take it at face value — any more than we should take at face value Nancy Pelosi’s hysteria over Donald Trump’s tax cut.

This is an important issue. With potentially serious ramifications — both good and bad. It deserves to be considered seriously by Nevadans. But the fear-mongering propaganda campaign by the No on 3 crowd isn’t helping. We deserve better.

Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a conservative grassroots advocacy organization. He blogs on local, state and national issues at www.MuthsTruths.com.