With the climate crisis becoming more urgent and cities growing rapidly, there’s a lot of pressure on urban areas to change how they use and produce energy.
Blog post
The blogpost is written by
This blog post is written by master's student Roya Shahgholi og Helia Zargarimarandi, under the supervision of Harald Røstvik and Anders Riel Müller.
In our thesis, we looked into one idea that’s been gaining attention in Europe: Positive Energy Districts (PEDs). These are urban areas that generate more renewable energy than they consume over the course of a year. They combine smart technology, planning, and community involvement to reduce emissions and increase energy efficiency. But implementing them in practice – especially in Norway – still seems limited and uneven.
We wanted to understand how PEDs could be made to work in the Norwegian context. To do that, we studied Site 4016, a former industrial area in Stavanger that is currently undergoing redevelopment. Our main goal was to see whether this site had the potential to become a PED, and what would be needed to make that happen. We also looked at other Norwegian cases, Furuset in Oslo, Brattøra, and Sluppen in Trondheim, to see what lessons could be learned.
To organize our analysis, we built a framework from existing PED literature and policy documents. This framework included six important areas: the planning approach, energy source diversity, smart grid integration, involvement of the local community, potential for local energy production, and regulatory or legal support.
Our research used a qualitative approach. We did a comparative case study, combining document analysis with a structured evaluation matrix. Each of the three existing PED cases was assessed using the six categories from our framework. We then did the same for Site 4016, so we could see how it compared and where the gaps were.
The first thing that became clear was how uneven the PED landscape is in Norway. Cities like Trondheim and Oslo have been much more active in this area, especially through their involvement in European research projects like +CityxChange and ZEN. They benefit from strong partnerships with universities, dedicated funding, and municipal teams that are already thinking long-term about energy and sustainability.
On the other hand, Site 4016 is being developed mostly by private actors, with less direct support from the municipality. While the site has some technical advantages—like good space for rooftop solar panels and an existing district heating system. There’s no coordinated strategy to turn it into a PED. The development feels fragmented, and the planning approach doesn’t yet include smart systems or community engagement.
One of the biggest differences we saw between the cases was around citizen participation. In Furuset, the municipality ran workshops with residents, even using Minecraft to involve local youth in redesigning their neighborhood. That level of involvement helps build ownership and long-term behavioral change. In contrast, there’s very little evidence that people who live or work near Site 4016 have been asked for input or even informed about sustainability goals. That’s a missed opportunity, because energy-positive districts rely on behavior just as much as they do on infrastructure.
Another issue is the lack of supportive regulations. Although Norway is generally progressive when it comes to climate policy, a lot of the rules around zoning, energy sharing, and planning are still designed for traditional development. Cities like Stavanger often don’t have the legal tools or political mandate to try new, experimental models. Without that flexibility, it’s hard to implement the kind of systemic, cross-sector work that PEDs require.
Based on our comparison, we think Site 4016 is in a pre-PED phase. It has potential, but the conditions aren’t fully in place yet. What’s missing is a clear vision from the municipality, stronger collaboration between stakeholders, and tools to support innovation, especially when it comes to digital infrastructure and energy systems. Without those, the site risks becoming another typical urban development, instead of a model for energy-positive transformation.
To move forward, we proposed a four-phase roadmap. First, the municipality should lay institutional groundwork, including setting PED goals and clarifying governance. Second, they could gradually introduce technical improvements like smart meters or solar installations. Third, they should involve citizens early, perhaps through open workshops or pilot projects. Finally, they need to allow room for experimentation, for example by testing new models for energy sharing or district management.
Working on this thesis made it clear to us that PEDs aren’t just about technology. They’re about how cities are governed. Success depends on who gets involved, how decisions are made, and whether long-term thinking can be translated into everyday planning. Norway has the tools and expertise to lead in this area, but there’s still a gap between ambition and reality.
Our framework, we hope, can be useful for other planners and researchers trying to evaluate PED potential in different places. It helps break the idea down into manageable parts, and highlights the importance of both technical and social readiness. PEDs might not be the only solution to urban sustainability, but they can push cities to think in new ways – about energy, about collaboration, and about the future.