That seems more plausible to me. It is not clear to me why grids should cope worse with the "goose roast peak" phenomenon on the feed-in side than on the demand side. After all, solar radiation does not increase abruptly either, temperatures rise predictably with a lead time of several hours.
Moreover, the whole thing would only make sense if there were, for example, annual expansion limits. Year 1: 100 GWp installed capacity, of which 70 GWp feed-in capable Year 2: an additional 100 GWp added capacity, of which also 70 GWp feed-in capable. Thus, the grid in year 2 would already have to withstand peaks of 140 GWp, whereas only 70 GWp had to be managed the previous year. Why not plan directly with 100 in year 1 and 200 in year 2?
Also here: flatten the curve. Presumably investment protection for grid operators who do not feel the expansion of renewables driven forward by the high Renewable Energy Act support at full force but always with a time delay. Perhaps still economically sensible (no idea, we will probably never find out), unpleasant for the plant operator from a business perspective, absolutely stupid ecologically.