NV Energy may be on the cusp of a major campaign comeback.

In 2016, Nevada’s long-dominant energy provider sat out the first half of the fight over a monopoly-busting ballot measure aimed squarely at dismantling its business model. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the measure — known as Question 3 or the energy choice initiative — passed by an overwhelming margin, with some 72 percent of Nevadans voting in favor of picking their own power provider by 2023.

Two years and an estimated $30 million later, a lot has changed.

A torrent of NV Energy-funded anti-Question 3 ads have flooded the airwaves ahead of a final vote on the measure in November. Polls show they’ve worked, as public sentiment toward the proposed constitutional amendment has just about flipped.

Somewhere between 46 and 51 percent of likely voters now oppose the initiative, according to a pair of Suffolk/RGJ surveys conducted in July and September. A little less than a third of poll respondents said they supported the measure.

More:Adelson vs. Buffett: Here's why Question 3 is turning Nevada politicians in knots

Related:RGJ poll: Heller-Rosen, Nevada governor races in dead heat. More on Question 3, brothels

Campaign operatives might quibble with the percentages, but in separate editorial board-style meetings with the Reno Gazette Journal, they didn’t dispute the effectiveness of NV Energy’s deep-pocketed campaign to oppose the measure.

Six weeks ahead of Election Day, neither side feels the caustic campaign clash is over.

“(No on 3) are running the classic ‘No’ campaign where they’re trading on uncertainty and trying to scare the shit out of voters,” said Dave Chase, executive director of Nevadans for Affordable, Clean Energy Choices, the PAC supporting the Yes on 3 campaign. “They are assuming the worst possible outcome of any of this. But that’s just not likely.

“There’s a way to do this that benefits consumers, takes away the power from NV Energy and builds a better economy here in Nevada.”

A bitter campaign continues

Coalition to Defeat Question 3, the PAC opposing the initiative, took a similarly dim view of its opponent’s tactics, particularly a recent attack ad targeting NV Energy CEO Paul Caudill’s past promises to steer clear of the energy choice initiative.

Caudill in 2016 told veteran political journalist Jon Ralston that his company wouldn’t “spend a dime” fighting the energy choice initiative.

Since he made that remark, NV Energy has so far spent roughly $12 million opposing the measure (with more spending expected to come), often while under fire from critics who say the company is using ratepayer money to protect profit margins for its parent company, which is chaired by famed billionaire investor Warren Buffett.

Question 3 supporters — who are financed by a billionaire of their own in casino magnate Sheldon Adelson — said the ad is just the first of several campaign jabs to be aimed at Caudill’s past statements.

Ballot measure backers also plan to highlight “overearnings” it says state regulators have allowed NV Energy to collect in recent years.

No on 3 campaign manager Peter Koltak said the latest ad assault reeked of desperation.

“It’s an attempt to distract,” Koltak said. “They’re falling back on a trope that is almost a candidate-style attack ad. … It’s kind of the Hail Mary pass.

“Those are the arguments you start to throw around when your losing the conversation on the merits and you’re looking to claw your way back.”

Yes on 3 ad featuring NV Energy CEO Paul Caudill:

So what would Question 3 mean for your power bill? It's anyone's guess

The tone of the campaign managers reflects the tone of a campaign that has seen bitter disputes over almost every single one of Question 3’s conceivable consequences.

No on 3 claims electricity rates would skyrocket in a competitive market. Yes on 3 contends competition would only drive those prices down. Opponents worry the measure will threaten rural electrical cooperatives, grid reliability and rooftop solar providers. Supporters say it would do no such thing.

Yes on 3 tends to put more faith in the state Legislature’s ability to re-regulate the state’s electrical grid if Question 3 passes, while criticizing the Nevada Public Utilities Commission’s past efforts to watchdog NV Energy. No on 3 fears state lawmakers will be too busy to properly reconfigure a post-Question 3 energy market, and that federal regulators don’t have a firm enough grasp to crack down on unscrupulous private power providers.

Experts, for the most part, have steered clear of the carnage.

Both the nonprofit Guinn Center for Policy Priorities and Gov. Brian Sandoval’s Committee on Energy Choice pointedly declined to take sides on the most hotly contested question of the whole campaign — the measure’s potential impact on monthly power bills.

Each cited wildly divergent claims over state-by-state electricity rates and uncertainty about how the Legislature would implement the measure among the reasons why it was impossible to accurately estimate impacts on ratepayers.

The lack of unbiased, independent data has essentially forfeited the campaign’s central questions to the campaigners, who have answered with a steady stream of slickly produced TV soundbites delivered by square-jawed firefighters and dreamy reality TV stars.

Meanwhile, squabbles over the measure’s nuances have only grown more sinister.

No on 3 ad featuring firefighter Cory Whitlock:

Yes camp slams NV Energy cash. No camp says proponents are using 'Enron math'

Adam Kramer, vice president for strategy at Switch — the Las Vegas-based data center company that counts as Question 3’s second-largest financial backer — told the RGJ that NV Energy had overcharged customers to the tune of $240 million over the past 3 and a half years.

He said the company had also stacked up $850 million in deferred income taxes that energy choice supporters have said could be used to offset the costs of transitioning into a new, competitive energy market.

“They’re sitting on $1 billion of cash that should otherwise be refunded to Nevadans,” Kramer added.

NV Energy flatly denied that charge.

NV Energy President Doug Cannon said the company had already filed to return those taxes to customers. He said it simply wasn’t possible for the utility to overcharge ratepayers while under the strict scrutiny of state regulators.

If Question 3 passes, NV Energy has pledged to ditch its power plants and long-term power generation contracts. State regulators, relying on company-provided reports, in April determined that the cost of stranding such assets could reach $6 billion. They said those financial losses would, by law, have to be passed along to the company’s more than 1 million Nevada customers. That's why they conclude Question 3 would spell a nearly $25 monthly increase in bills for some Nevada consumers.

Measure proponents say ratepayers are already paying costs associated with long-term power contracts in their monthly power bill. They calculate that tax savings from last year’s sweeping GOP tax reform package will more than offset the remaining costs of transitioning into a new, competitive energy market. That's why they think the measure, if passed, would actually save consumers as much as $11 per month.

Cannon said he had no idea how energy choice proponents planned to use $850 million in deferred income taxes to pay the multibillion-dollar price tag state regulators have attached to the passage of Question 3.

“We’ve never been able to put their tax argument together,” Cannon said.

Koltak, the No on 3 campaign chief, derided the proposal as “Enron math.”

Question 3 has seen public support drop since 2016 — but many are still undecided

Ratepayers reached by the RGJ did not feel they had all the facts about the measure.

Craig Goleno — one of the roughly 16 percent of Nevadans who said they were undecided about the energy choice initiative in the latest Suffolk/RGJ poll — said he had seen the ads from both sides, but remained unconvinced.

If he had to vote today, the registered Republican said he might vote against the measure.

“I still have to look at the facts,” the Las Vegas-based retail salesman said. “I don’t have a problem with NV Energy. … I don’t think their rates are out of line.

“I would probably say I’m leaning toward saying no to deregulation.”

Fellow Las Vegas Republican Mike Bowsher, said he too had seen the ads and he hadn’t yet finished fact-checking their claims.

But he was particularly distrustful of a No on 3 ad that suggested the measure could lead to rolling blackouts similar to those that struck California’s partially-deregulated energy market in 2001.

Those blackouts were caused by Enron and other energy wholesalers who profited from artificially throttling the state’s energy supply. Yes on 3 has argued that federal regulators are in a much better position to stop such bad actors today then they were 17 years ago, when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had only a fraction of its current enforcement staff.

Bowsher was equally skeptical of the blackout claims. He said he was leaning toward supporting the energy choice initiative, just as he did in 2016, not least because of the blackout ad.

“I’m not an electrical engineer, but I don’t think that’s how the energy grid works,” Bowsher said. “If No on 3 is explaining this properly, it doesn’t make sense.”

Bowsher’s wariness seemed to echo concerns raised by a fellow GOP voter a few days earlier at a Question 3 forum hosted in Reno by the Republican Men’s Club of Northern Nevada.

One side of the ballot battle claims electric rates would go up under the energy choice initiative, the unnamed audience member pointed out, while the other side claims they would go down. So who, he wondered, is lying?

Representatives from both sides of the campaign stood at the front of the room and took a moment to collect their thoughts. Neither directly answered the question.

Voters go to the polls to decide Question 3's fate in a general election scheduled on Nov. 6. Early voting starts October 20.