When Raina Russo moved to Florida two years ago, the first thing she did was put solar panels on her family’s new home. Now, the “Solar Mom” is on the front lines fighting to save the state’s rooftop industry from utility-backed Amendment 1. The ballot measure purports to be pro solar—claiming to “protect” consumers and “guarantee” solar energy as a constitutional right. Opponents say it could do just the opposite.

Recently leaked tapes reveal the initiative to be part of a deceptive strategy to take down citizen-owned solar in the Sunshine State. The Miami Herald reported that Sal Nuzzo, a vice president at the Tallahassee-based James Madison Institute, laid out the in-depth plan by utility companies to finance and enact the measure at the State Energy/Environment Leadership Summit in Nashville earlier this month.

Calling Amendment 1 “an incredibly savvy maneuver,” Nuzzo told the audience, “As you guys look at policy in your state, or constitutional ballot initiatives in your state, remember this: Solar polls very well.”

The amendment comes to a vote on November’s ballot and could negatively impact Florida’s solar energy policy for years to come, clean energy proponents say. Florida’s major utility companies—Duke Energy, Florida Power and Light, Tampa Electric, and Gulf Power, among others—have injected over $21 million into the political action committee Consumers for Smart Solar in their efforts to pass the measure. The PAC has already spent much of that on ads (like this one) and direct mail campaigns.

A statewide poll taken last month by the Florida Chamber of Commerce showed that support for Amendment 1—also misleadingly referred to as the "Smart Solar Amendment"—exceeds the 60 percent of votes required for passage. Still, opposition remains steadfast in its seemingly uphill battle.

“It’s very difficult. They’re constantly bombarding voters with advertisements full of lies,” said Russo, founder of Women4Solar, a Florida-based solar caretaking service and activism hub. The organization’s grassroots efforts include attending social events and political rallies to distribute anti-Amendment 1 information, as well as raising awareness online via social media.

Women4Solar, along with 160 other organizations and businesses (among them the Sierra Club’s Florida Chapter), have already come out against the measure, according to Floridians for Solar Choice, a pro-solar political committee and the major opposition to the amendment. The diverse coalition goes beyond the solar industry and environmental nonprofits; its backers include organizations ranging from the Florida Christian Coalition to 17 major newspapers spanning Florida. Their chief concern lies in the measure’s deceptive nature.

“As we like to say, ‘it’s a monopoly wolf in solar sheep’s clothing,’” said Dr. Stephen Smith, executive director of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and a founding member of Floridians for Solar Choice. “We are in a pitted battle to stop the utilities from choking off citizen-owned solar.”

According to the official ballot summary, Amendment 1 “establishes a right under Florida’s constitution for consumers to own or lease solar equipment installed on their property to generate electricity for their own use.” It also states that the Florida government has the ability to “protect consumer rights” and “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.”

Bradley Marshall, senior associate attorney in Earthjustice’s Florida regional office, explains that it’s not the ballot summary that is deceptive for voters. It’s what is left out. Tucked within the full text—not included on the ballot—is the measure’s definition of subsidizing “backup power.” Section (3)(c) defines backup power as electricity “from an electric utility” during periods when solar electricity generation is “insufficient or unavailable, such as at night.”

While most people think of “backup power” as electricity via household, off-the-grid generators, Marshall says, the amendment’s definition actually pertains to the daily cycle of energy transaction and consumption. Under Florida’s current net-metering policy, solar users sell unused energy back to the grid at wholesale prices, generally during the day when electricity rates are highest and solar energy is in surplus. Then, solar customers draw energy—or “backup power”—from the grid at night when their rooftop systems are no longer generating power. The language of the amendment could allow for hefty fees to be doled out by utility companies for using this power under the pretense of protection for all consumers—stifling Florida’s bountiful rooftop solar potential in the process.

Opponents of Amendment 1 worry that the utility companies’ real target is the system of net metering itself, and that the measure could lead to its repeal.

“It puts into the constitution the principle that when you have a solar panel, you are subsidized via net metering—it’s implied—by non-solar users,” Marshall said. Constitutionalizing the notion that solar users are “subsidized” by non-solar users encourages negative perceptions about rooftop solar that may be ungrounded, he said. In fact, a recent report by the Brookings Institution found that net metering actually has a net-positive for all electricity consumers, as well as for the utility companies themselves.

Representing Environment Florida, Progress Florida, and the Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, Marshall and other attorneys voiced these concerns in front of Florida’s Supreme Court this past January. Marshall hoped to get the measure thrown off the ballot; the environmental groups lost in a 4-3 vote.

Dick Batchelor, an Amendment 1 proponent who is co-chair of Consumers for Smart Solar, disputes the argument that the measure is in any way misleading. “A plain reading of our amendment, and an exhaustive independent review of it, prove that [opposing] statements about Amendment 1 are simply not true,” he wrote in an email.

The measure is part of a long-raging battle in Florida over energy policy. The state is already feeling the effects of climate change—for example, clear-sky flooding in Miami’s South Beach neighborhood—yet it lags behind much of the country in moving away from fossil fuels. Natural gas comprises 70 percent of power generation, compared to extremely limited renewable energy, which constitutes a fraction of 1 percent. In 2014, Floridians voted to roll back energy efficiency and solar rebates. Today, the state is one of four that outlaws third-party ownership of energy generation, which enables households to host panels that are owned by separate investors, like SolarCity. Amendment 1 was originally conceived by utility strategists after Floridians for Solar Choice put forth another solar energy amendment that would have allowed for third-party ownership.

Beth Bond, curator of Southeast Green, a website for sustainable and environmental policy news in the Southeast, says a lack of national energy policy has been disastrous.  

“The corporations can play nice in one state and then go into one of the most populated states in the country and stop them from implementing solar,” she said.

Indeed, Florida’s major utility companies—the same ones pumping millions into Amendment 1—are heavily invested in renewable energy in other states in the region. Gulf Power Company, for example, is owned by Southern Company, which also owns Georgia Power, one of the leading installers of solar in the Southeast. Duke Energy has been a huge player in North Carolina’s solar market, which has the third most installed solar capacity in the nation. NextEra, which owns Florida Power and Light, claims to be one of the largest wind power generators in the world.

“Solar’s strongest asset,” Russo said in an email, “is that the truth is on our side.”