Upfront: I don't know the exact rules that are in play in Florida. Therefore the article could very well be a strawman by neglecting that all these practices are tied into this leasing business model.
When someone sells their excess energy over the electrical grid of a private entity, then they should be held accountable for maintenance costs, but also after all the subsidies an electrical company gets from the sate.
The thing with the energy prices is a little bit more complicated. But we can agree that a full market rate is bogus. There's a similar problem where I live. Power companies have to buy at a fixed rate which they dump on the end user by increasing the prices.
The problem that I see is that article makes it sound as if all kinds of lease agreements are illegal for PV, makes it sound like they make it harder for you to become independent, even if you only want to provide your own energy, without selling any.
Owning large, usable sunshine roofs is often used as an argument, because it puts other people, that don't own such property, at a disadvantage. But the basic logic behind those arguments makes it sound like I'm not entitled to use the rainwater, which is collected in tanks, because I can use rainwater for my plants instead of tap water. Therefore I should pay for maintenance of the water grid (which I already do for sewer maintenance, where I live). And as we're already there, then the plants I grow myself for eating and selling are also a bad thing. If I eat my own food and don't buy it from the market, then I'm hurting said market, and should be held accountable for logistic costs.
From this perspective it sounds like the big companies want people to stay dependent and convinced the government to enforce this by laws.