Thesis Topics

Description:
Millions of households now own batteries, heat pumps, and EV chargers — a vast pool of potential flexibility that could ease grid stress and cut reinforcement costs. The catch: this flexibility is decentralized and self-interested. Price signals alone often fail to coordinate it at the moments the grid needs most. A range of mechanisms — from dynamic tariffs to virtual power plants, energy communities, and direct grid control — promise to solve this, but they differ sharply in how well they work and what they demand from households.

This thesis maps and compares the main mechanisms for aggregating residential flexibility, assessing each against the criteria that matter for grid relief, fairness, and feasibility.

Possible Research Questions:

• What mechanisms exist to coordinate decentralized residential flexibility (price-based tariffs, direct/regulated control, aggregators/VPPs, energy communities, local flexibility markets)?
• How does each perform on effectiveness, transparency, fairness, consumer acceptance, and regulatory feasibility?
• Where do price-based signals fall short, and which mechanisms address those gaps?
• What trade-offs arise between effectiveness and household autonomy/transparency?
• Which mechanisms appear most promising under deep electrification?

Requirements:

• Strong interest in energy systems, flexibility, and the power sector
• Ideally: background in economics, management, engineering, or energy systems
• Interest in structured, literature-based research and academic writing
• Ability to synthesize and compare evidence across different research streams

Methodological Approach:
Structured comparison at the heart of the flexibility debate

• Survey the landscape of coordination mechanisms across academic and policy literature
• Build a clear evaluation framework and apply it consistently across mechanisms
• Surface the trade-offs — what each mechanism delivers, what it costs households, and where the open gaps lie

Goal:
Develop a structured comparison of mechanisms for aggregating residential flexibility, clarifying their strengths, trade-offs, and suitability for coordinating households under deep electrification.

Language: English or German
Start: ASAP
Application: Please reach out to me directly via mail with your CV and grade report.
Contact: Alexander Oertmann (alexander.oertmann(at)tum.de)

Description:
As heat pumps, EV chargers, rooftop PV, and home batteries spread across German households, the distribution grid faces growing strain. Paragraph 14a of the German Energy Industry Act (§14a EnWG) is the central regulatory answer: since 2024 it allows grid operators to control flexible household devices — in exchange for reduced network charges. The framework is evolving rapidly and sits at the heart of Germany's energy transition.

This thesis maps the current §14a framework and its reform trajectory, and assesses what it would take to move from today's defensive curtailment toward genuine coordination of household flexibility — including the growing role of PV and battery storage.

Possible Research Questions:

• What does §14a EnWG currently allow grid operators to do, and for which devices?
• How do Modules 1–3 (flat reduction, variable, and time-variable grid fees) differ in incentives and effects?
• How is the framework evolving (EU Directive 2024/1711, recent Bundesnetzagentur revisions)?
• What would active coordination of flexible household devices (heat pumps, EV charging, battery dispatch) require beyond the current curtailment-focused rules?
• How does §14a compare to flexibility regulations in other European countries?

Requirements:

• Strong interest in energy regulation and the German/European power sector
• Ideally: background in economics, management, or energy systems
• Interest in policy-based research and structured academic writing
• Ability to synthesize fast-moving regulatory developments

Methodological Approach:
Hands-on regulatory detective work at the frontier of energy policy

• Dive into the legal texts, regulatory filings, and academic debate shaping §14a — a regulation still being written in real time
• Untangle and structure the framework's modules, mechanisms, and reform direction into a clear picture
• Possible comparison with flexibility regulations in other European jurisdictions 

Goal:
Develop a clear, structured overview of §14a EnWG and its trajectory, identifying what current regulation enables and what coordinated household flexibility would require.

Language: English or German
Start: ASAP
Application: Please reach out to me directly via mail with your CV and grade report.
Contact: Alexander Oertmann (alexander.oertmann(at)tum.de)

Description:
Across Europe, governments spend billions subsidizing residential solar and battery systems — but they do it in very different ways. Some pay per kilowatt installed, others reward self-consumption, energy content, or feed-in. These design choices shape who adopts, who benefits, and whether public money actually delivers value to the energy system. Yet a clear, comparative picture of how these schemes are built is surprisingly hard to find.

This thesis maps and classifies residential PV-battery subsidy schemes across Germany and selected European countries, revealing what behaviors each design rewards — and what it overlooks.

Possible Research Questions:

• How are residential PV and battery subsidies designed across Germany and other European countries?
• What is each scheme's subsidy base (per-kWp, self-consumption, capacity, energy content, feed-in)?
• Which household behaviors does each design reward — and which does it ignore?
• How do support levels and eligibility rules differ across jurisdictions?
• Do any schemes link support to a system's contribution to grid relief or peak reduction?

Requirements:

• Strong interest in energy policy and the European renewable energy sector
• Ideally: background in economics, management, or energy systems
• Interest in comparative policy research and structured academic writing
• Ability to gather and organize information from diverse national sources

Methodological Approach:
Comparative policy mapping across Europe's subsidy landscape

• Track down and decode real subsidy schemes from regulatory and policy sources across multiple countries
• Classify them along a clear typology of subsidy bases, levels, and eligibility rules
• Surface the patterns: what these schemes incentivize, where they diverge, and what they leave on the table

Goal:
Develop a clear, structured comparison of European residential PV-battery subsidy schemes, classified by design and incentive logic, as a foundation for assessing how well public support aligns with system value.

Language: English or German
Start: ASAP
Application: Please reach out to me directly via mail with your CV and grade report.
Contact: Alexander Oertmann (alexander.oertmann(at)tum.de)

Description:
Electrifying heating and mobility means millions of new heat pumps, EVs, and batteries drawing on a distribution grid that was never built for them. The result: a looming wave of grid reinforcement — new cables, transformers, and feeders — projected to cost European grid operators billions. But how big is the bill really? Published estimates vary enormously depending on country, method, and assumptions, and no clear comparative picture exists.

This thesis collects, structures, and benchmarks projected distribution-grid reinforcement cost estimates across European studies, creating a comparable reference for how much electrification will cost the grid — and what drives the differences.

Possible Research Questions:

• What reinforcement cost estimates do European DSO studies and academic papers report?
• How do costs differ by country, grid level (LV/MV/HV), and area type (rural vs. urban)?
• Which assumptions (adoption rates, methods, cost parameters) drive the biggest differences?
• What share of costs falls on which grid level — and where are the cost hotspots?
• Can the estimates be normalized into comparable figures (e.g., € per household)?

Requirements:

• Strong interest in energy infrastructure and the European power sector
• Ideally: background in economics, engineering, management, or energy systems
• Comfort comparing studies with differing methods and assumptions
• Care and rigor in structuring and normalizing quantitative findings

Methodological Approach:
Cost detective work across Europe's grid studies

• Track down and decode reinforcement cost estimates from DSO reports, regulatory studies, and academic literature
• Structure them by country, grid level, method, and underlying assumptions
• Where possible, normalize into comparable benchmarks and surface what really drives the cost differences

Goal:
Develop a structured, comparable overview of projected European distribution-grid reinforcement costs, identifying key drivers and a defensible benchmark range to ground future modeling work.

Language: English or German
Start: ASAP
Application: Please reach out to me directly via mail with your CV and grade report.
Contact: Alexander Oertmann (alexander.oertmann(at)tum.de)

Hintergrund:

Die Attraktivität von Arbeitgebern wird stark durch monetäre Faktoren geprägt. Die Höhe und Transparenz der Vergütung sind zentrale Differenzierungsmerkmale im Wettbewerb um Fach‑ und Arbeitskräfte. Vor diesem Hintergrund gewinnt die Frage nach der tatsächlichen Vergütungssituation in kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen erheblich an Bedeutung – sowohl für Betriebe als auch für (potenzielle) Beschäftigte und politische Akteure.

Das Ludwig‑Fröhler‑Institut erhebt seit 2024 Vergütungsdaten zu Auszubildenden, Gesellen, Meistern, kaufmännischen Mitarbeitenden sowie Helfern in Handwerksbetrieben. Bisher wurden die Regionen Ostbayern, Baden‑Württemberg, Nordrhein‑Westfalen, Sachsen und Sachsen‑Anhalt jeweils separat analysiert. Über alle Regionen hinweg liegt nun ein einmaliger Datensatz von rund 7.500 Betrieben mit über 26.000 Vergütungsbeobachtungen vor, der im Rahmen dieser Abschlussarbeit weiter ausgewertet werden soll.

Zielsetzung und mögliche Forschungsfragen:

Ziel der Arbeit ist eine empirische Analyse der Vergütungshöhen und ihrer Determinanten in Handwerks‑KMU mit Fokus auf regionalen Unterschieden. Mögliche Leitfragen sind u. a.:

• Wie schneiden die einzelnen Regionen in puncto Vergütungshöhe gegeneinander ab?
• Gibt es Ost/West‑ bzw. Nord/Süd‑Unterschiede in der Vergütung, wenn für Betriebs‑ und Personenmerkmale kontrolliert wird?
• Welche Determinanten der Vergütung im Handwerk können identifiziert werden (Qualifikation, Betriebsgröße/Umsatz, Gewerbezweig etc.)?
• Gibt es regionale oder gewerkespezifische Unterschiede im Einsatz zusätzlicher Entgeltbestandteile?

Diese Abschlussarbeit ist eingebettet in ein laufendes, stark praxisorientiertes Forschungsprojekt des Ludwig‑Fröhler‑Instituts (Praxispartner: https://lfi-muenchen.de/, Dr. Andrea Greilinger).

Vorgehen und Methodik:

Die Arbeit verbindet wissenschaftliche Fundierung mit hohem Praxisbezug:

• Theoretische und empirische Literaturarbeit (z. B. Arbeitsmarkt‑ und Lohnstrukturforschung, regionale Lohnunterschiede, Tarifbindung, KMU/Handwerk)
• Datenanalyse (z. B. Deskriptive Auswertung der Vergütungsdaten (Regionen, Gewerke, Qualifikationsstufen), Regressionsanalysen zur Identifikation von Vergütungsdeterminanten)
• Grafische Aufbereitung und Interpretation der Ergebnisse
• Systematisierung und Praxisübertragung (Ableitung von Implikationen für Betriebe, Handwerksorganisationen und Politik, Diskussion der Aussagekraft und Grenzen der Ergebnisse)

Hinweis: Die Datenerhebung ist vollständig abgeschlossen; der Fokus der Arbeit liegt auf Auswertung und Interpretation

Dein Profil:

• Interesse an Arbeitsmarkt‑, Personal‑ oder Regionalökonomik sowie an empirischer Forschung
• Grundkenntnisse in Statistik/Ökonometrie und Bereitschaft, mit Statistiksoftware (z. B. Stata) zu arbeiten
• Sorgfältige, strukturierte Arbeitsweise und Freude daran, größere Datensätze zu analysieren
• Gute Deutschkenntnisse in Wort und Schrift (für die Ergebnisinterpretation und das Verfassen der Arbeit)

Was wir bieten:

• Zugang zu einem umfangreichen, in dieser Form einzigartigen Datensatz mit hoher Praxisrelevanz (≈ 7.500 Betriebe, > 26.000 Vergütungsangaben)
• Enge fachliche Betreuung und regelmäßiger Austausch
• Ein Thema mit klarer Sichtbarkeit und Relevanz für Handwerksbetriebe, Handwerkskammern und Politik – die Ergebnisse fließen in ein größeres Forschungs‑ und Transferprojekt ein
• Möglichkeit, empirische Methoden praktisch anzuwenden und Kenntnisse in Datenanalyse und Visualisierung zu vertiefen

Start: 

Mitte Juni, Juli

Bewerbung: Die Bewerbung erfolgt über das Bewerbungsportal das Lehrstuhls.

Kontakt: 

Max Reichenberger (max.reichenberger@tum.de), Dr. Andrea Greilinger (greilinger@lfi-muenchen.de)