Florida's so-called Smart Solar amendment is "smart" only for the utility companies that have poured more than $20 million into this attempt to guarantee that they can keep their monopoly on consumer energy.

The amendment is meant to confuse Floridians, and the state's Supreme Court never should have let it get on the ballot. We strongly urge voters to say "No" to Amendment 1.

Amendments typically come from citizen initiatives or, every 20 years, from the Florida Constitution Revision Commission. This shady-not-smart solar amendment exists only because the utilities saw it as a way to torpedo a separate amendment they didn't like.

Amendment 1 supporters acknowledge their ballot question isn't in response to widespread complaints from residents. Rather, it came about after another amendment sought to make it easier for Floridians to obtain affordable solar energy.

Instead of simply fighting that amendment, the shady-not-smart solar group created its own dueling amendment. With a much larger war chest to pay signature gatherers, they wiped the other amendment off the map.

The war chest for Amendment 1 includes massive contributions from utility companies. It already is the second-most expensive ballot initiative in Florida history. The utility companies are spending a ton of money to protect their interests, not to protect consumers.

Under the guise of being pro-solar, Amendment 1 inserts into the state's constitution what already exists in law — the right to own or lease solar panels. But the amendment could also land a crushing blow to net metering, a policy that is common across the country and requires utility companies — including those in Florida — to buy electricity from homes that generate excess solar power.

The amendment ensures "that consumers who do not choose to install solar are not required to subsidize the costs of backup power and electric grid access to those who do."

If this amendment passes, the utility companies could argue that net metering is a "subsidy" and, since it's in the state constitution, lawmakers would have to ban it. Solar energy costs could then rise, making it less affordable for consumers. There's no evidence this would help save money for non-solar users.

These are discussions that state lawmakers should be having as solar energy becomes more affordable in Florida. It makes no sense, however, to place regulations in the state constitution before we fully realize the market for solar power in Florida and understand what it means for consumers.

Current state law bans landlords from selling power from solar panels to their tenants, something that the initial solar amendment supporters sought to legalize.

Right now, for example, Publix is allowed to install solar panels. But Publix cannot sell its excess solar power to tenants in the shopping plaza who might be able to save money and help the environment by using solar energy. State law mandates that only energy companies like FPL can sell energy.

Amendment 1 supporters point to Arizona, where homeowners can bypass utility companies and unscrupulous third parties are allowed to sell long-term solar power leases. Florida homeowners, they say, could fall victim to the same type of companies if utility companies' stranglehold over the state isn't protected in the constitution.

Those are scare tactics. If lawmakers ever consider allowing third-party companies to sell solar leases in Florida, they would have the ability to regulate it. And there's no change in the state law on the horizon.

The shady-not-smart solar group knows that voters like the sound of solar energy. We live in the Sunshine State so why not support an underutilized source of energy?

But Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente, writing in dissent when the high court approved putting the amendment on the ballot, said Amendment 1 does nothing to kick start solar energy use in Florida.

"Masquerading as a pro-solar energy initiative, this proposed constitutional amendment, supported by some of Florida's major investor-owned electric utility companies, actually seeks to constitutionalize the status quo," Pariente wrote. The high court approved the amendment on a 4-3 vote.

Amendment supporters argue that they're looking out for consumers, including the elderly and poor, by keeping costs down so non-solar users aren't paying higher fees to subsidize solar users, who still need access to the grid for when their batteries run low. It's an unsubstantiated claim.

"As solar becomes an essential part of Florida's energy mix, we must protect consumers, particularly our seniors, from scams, rip-offs and unfair subsidies," says Jim Kallinger, the co-chair of Consumers for Smart Solar.

So why is FPL, which has donated millions of dollars to this initiative, asking the state's Public Service Commission to make consumers pay an extra $1.3 billion in higher rates over the next three years? In the last couple years FPL also has eliminated cost-saving rebates. The company is not looking out for your pocket book — FPL is looking out for FPL.

Floridians need better solar policy. Despite year-round sunshine, we are 15th in the country in solar energy usage.

Placing an amendment in the state constitution that benefits the utility companies isn't the smart answer.