The thesis, Understanding households’ transitions to sustainable energy practices: A level playing field or a pipe dream?, is based on 37 in-depth interviews with households in the Oslo region.

From low use to even lower

One of the main findings is that households with strong finances have far greater room to invest in solutions such as heat pumps, solar panels and smart home systems. They often live in larger homes and may own second homes as well.

At the same time, it is frequently households with fewer resources who adapt most directly to rising electricity prices, by cutting back on everyday practices such as showering, doing laundry or baking.

'Many of those in higher social positions knew they used a lot of electricity, but were not particularly concerned about it,' Matthiasen said during the defence. 'For others, energy use was about making ends meet.'

Flexibility is uneven

A central argument in the dissertation is that "flexibility" – the ability to shift electricity use to cheaper hours – is not equally distributed.

If you live in a flat, you may have limited control over heating. If you work fixed shifts, you cannot always postpone laundry or charging an electric car until prices drop.

'Flexibility can look like a choice for some, but for others it is a constraint,' Matthiasen explains. 'Work, housing and income shape what is realistically possible.'

First opponent NTNU Professor Tomas Moe Skjølsvold highlighted this point during the defence, noting that the dissertation makes clear that energy flexibility and efficiency are socially structured, and that this matters for debates on energy justice.

Who benefits?

The defence also touched on Norwegian policy instruments such as the electricity support scheme and the proposed "Norway price", a model that caps the price per kilowatt-hour and therefore provides larger financial benefits to households with higher consumption.

Matthiasen shows that such universal schemes can unintentionally reinforce inequality: those who consume more receive more support, without necessarily changing their practices.

'Expensive technological investments are often recognised as green and forward-looking,' he says. 'Using less electricity because you have to is not valued in the same way.'

FNI Research Professor Tor Håkon Jackson Inderberg, co-supervisor at FNI, underlines the policy relevance:

'We often speak about the energy system in technical and economic terms, as if consumers were all the same. This research reminds us that there are people with very different opportunities behind every electricity meter. That matters when designing policy.'

The PhD forms part of the research centre FME Include, which studies socially inclusive energy transitions.