Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) are increasingly promoted as the operational unit of urban decarbonisation, yet the literature rarely addresses how the equipment that generates, stores and distributes the district’s renewable surplus is kept reliable, available and maintainable over its lifespan. This paper addresses that gap with DEPGEMAN, a qualitative–quantitative conceptual model that aligns energy management with physical-asset maintenance across the life cycle of the PED infrastructure. The model is grounded in Toulmin’s argumentation scheme, a bibliometric analysis of Scopus and Web of Science, and three international standards, ISO 50001, ISO 55000:2024 and UNE-EN 17485:2023, and is operationalised through an Evaluate–Analyse–Correct–Verify (EACV) cycle. An explicit energy balance, four balanced phase indices and a new Integrated Energy Sustainability Index for Positive Energy Districts (IISE-PED) translate the model into measurable management practice. The framework is demonstrated on a parametrised archetype of the Zorrozaurre positive energy district (Bilbao, Spain). Moving from preventive and predictive maintenance to a reactive approach lowers system availability from 99.05% to 86.82%, raises grid purchases from 17 to 237 MWh/year for the same useful demand, and drives the IISE-PED from 0.98 to 0.33 without changing any social, tariff or behavioural input. It is worth noting that the district’s sustainability performance thereby becomes an auditable consequence of its asset-management regime.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moreno et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: