Voters in Florida are due next month to consider a constitutional amendment that opponents say is a deceptive attempt to restrict the market for rooftop solar energy systems.

While most are focusing on Florida as a key battleground state that could decide the presidential election between Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonButtigieg stands in as Pence for Harris's debate practice Senate GOP sees early Supreme Court vote as political booster shot Poll: 51 percent of voters want to abolish the electoral college MORE and Donald Trump Donald John TrumpOmar fires back at Trump over rally remarks: 'This is my country' Pelosi: Trump hurrying to fill SCOTUS seat so he can repeal ObamaCare Trump mocks Biden appearance, mask use ahead of first debate MORE, electric utilities, solar companies and their allies are blanketing the airwaves with advertisements regarding Amendment 1.

ADVERTISEMENT

The ballot question would add a new amendment to the state’s constitution, backed by electric utilities, that supporters say would protect the rights of homeowners and businesses to buy or rent rooftop solar panels, and the rights of local and state government officials to regulate the industry, including through consumer protections.

“If you believe that government has a role to protect consumers, whether it be from unfair cost-shifts, consumer protections or anything like that, then Amendment 1 should make sense. If you want government out of those decisions, then you probably don’t like Amendment 1,” said Screven Watson, former head of the state’s Democratic Party and a board member at Consumers for Smart Solar. The group supports the amendment and is backed by some of the state’s biggest utilities.

Opponents of the measure, including companies that install and own solar panels on homes, say that argument is wildly misleading.

“You have the biggest utility players in the United States, in one of the biggest markets in the United States, perpetuating the biggest voter fraud ever perpetuated in Florida,” said Stephen Smith, director of Floridians for Solar Choice.

“Here we are in the Sunshine State, people are hungry for this, and utilities are trying to pull a dirty trick on them and deceive them,” Smith said.

The solar industry and environmentalists, both nationally and locally, are teaming up against the ballot question, joined by some libertarians, tea party activists and others.

Opponents of the amendment have received some high-profile endorsements as well. Former vice president and climate change activist Al Gore Albert (Al) Arnold GoreCruz says Senate Republicans likely have votes to confirm Trump Supreme Court nominee 4 inconclusive Electoral College results that challenged our democracy Fox's Napolitano: 2000 election will look like 'child's play' compared to 2020 legal battles MORE told attendees at a Hillary Clinton rally this month to vote “no” on the amendment, and “Margaritaville” singer Jimmy Buffett is also urging a “no” vote.

Solar advocates and allies fear that the Florida measure could create a playbook that utilities could use nationwide to fight rooftop solar.

"It sets a precedent for how individuals’ rights could be held hostage by using deceitful language," said Tom Kimbis, interim president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, which is working to defeat the amendment.

"This is clearly a bellwether as to whether this is going to work or not," he said.

The amendment vote comes amid fights all over the country between electric utilities and rooftop solar companies.

States frequently require utilities to buy extra electricity from rooftop solar customers and pay the same rate that the utilities pay for energy from power plants, a policy known as net metering.

While Florida’s amendment would not prohibit net metering, it would instruct the government “to ensure 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.”

Opponents charge that that language could be used to justify an end to net metering, or large fees to sell back the electricity to the grid.

In addition, Florida does not allow third-party companies to own solar panels, a popular business model in many other states. Those companies worry that with the new amendment, Florida would never allow third-party operators.

The Sunshine State lags behind comparable states in rooftop solar, and the industry says it’s because of the ban on third-party operators.

“Amendment 1 claims it will encourage the use of rooftop solar, when in fact, it’s really doing the opposite,” said Bradley Marshall, an attorney with Earthjustice. “Solar users could end up paying significantly more than non-solar users for the same energy.”

Watson, of the group supporting the amendment, shot back and what he said were “myths” about the amendment, which does not itself proscribe anything about net metering or third-party ownership.

“The scary thing about this is how much misinformation there is out there,” he said. “It’s really not all that complicated.”

A poll released Wednesday by Bay News 9 found that 40 percent of votes support the amendment and 33 percent oppose. It needs 60 percent to pass.

Hannah Wiseman, a professor at Florida State University’s College of Law, predicted that the amendment would reach the threshold it needs to pass.

“There’s no other way to put it, it’s an incredibly deceptive amendment, but it’s worded to sound pro-solar,” she said. “I think it will pass, because it sounds pro-solar. And a lot of those saying they’ll vote for it I think assume it is in favor of more solar energy.”

The measure’s opponents got a big boost Oct. 18, when the Miami Herald and Tampa Bay Times released a recording from a meeting in which a supporter of the measure admitted that it is meant to be deceptive.

Sal Nuzzo, a vice president at the James Madison Institute said in the recording earlier this month that opponents of rooftop solar should use “a little bit of political jiu-jitsu” to convince voters — who generally support solar power — that the amendment is pro-solar.

Consumers for Smart Solar, the utility group, distanced itself from the comments, saying it had never worked with or spoken with anyone from the James Madison Institute, and the institute made a similar statement.

The Florida Supreme Court also shot down solar companies’ claims, ruling earlier this year that the amendment is not misleading.

While other high-profile battles have been fought between utilities and solar companies in states like Nevada and Hawaii, Florida’s case is unique in the charges of misleading the public.

Lance Long, a professor at Stetson University College of Law, noted that solar companies in Florida last year tried to get their own amendment to allow third-party operators in the state, spurring utilities to come up a competing measure.

“I don’t think the utilities would have done this but for the other amendment,” he said. “And rather than just oppose that, someone had the brilliant idea of doing a counter-amendment, and doing it in a way that made it seem like it’s the same thing.”