Our response to NOU 2026:6 The New Welfare Municipality

Oslo, 18.09.2026

Norway Health Tech (NHT) thanks you for the opportunity to provide input on NOU 2026:6, The New Welfare Municipality. The report makes an important contribution to how Norway can meet growing demand for health and welfare services in the face of a shrinking workforce and limited fiscal capacity.

Norway Health Tech is Norway’s largest health cluster. The cluster has more than 350 members and partners representing the entire health value chain, from start-ups and established companies to hospitals, municipalities, research environments, and international industry partners. We bring together stakeholders from across the health ecosystem to strengthen innovation, collaboration, and international growth. Twenty-five of our members have contributed directly to this consultation response.

NHT supports the committee’s overall analysis. If the welfare model is to remain sustainable in the future, municipalities must be better equipped to prevent needs from arising, strengthen citizens’ ability to manage their own lives, and make better use of society’s collective resources. NHT also supports the three main measures proposed by the committee: a targeted mission, a practice-oriented programme, and a national scaling fund. The report emphasizes that these instruments should create room for exploration, implementation, knowledge development, and scaling.

NHT brings together more than 350 organizations, including companies, health trusts, municipalities, universities, and research institutions. This response is based on dialogue within the cluster and written contributions from our members. Our members recognize the challenges described in the report. Many solutions are developed and tested, but too few are integrated into regular operations and scaled. The committee itself points out that this “pilot trap” is reinforced by a lack of coordination and significant differences between municipalities in terms of financial resources, competence, leadership, and organizational capacity.

NHT’s main message is therefore not that the report points in the wrong direction, but that the follow-up must ensure implementation. Ambitions must be translated into clear responsibilities, concrete criteria, and funding that covers the entire implementation pathway. Development, documentation, procurement, implementation, and scaling must be treated as one continuous process, with organizational change incorporated from the outset. The connection between different levels of care in a seamless patient pathway must also be addressed more clearly.

A system that is better able to adopt documented solutions will first and foremost provide better services and increased capacity. It can also create a more predictable home market for suppliers investing in the development, documentation, and scaling of solutions that address prioritized needs in health and care services.

Norway Health Tech’s Key Messages

1. The mission must have a clear implementation model

NHT supports the proposal for a targeted mission. The follow-up process must clarify how municipalities, citizens, businesses, research institutions, civil society, and other relevant stakeholders will participate in prioritization and implementation, and who is responsible for translating shared objectives into action.

2. Policy instruments must create a faster path from documented impact to sustainable operations

The practice-oriented programme and the scaling fund must support the entire implementation pathway and distinguish between solutions that still require testing and solutions that have already demonstrated impact. The instruments must reduce the risk associated with moving from pilot projects to regular operations.

3. Prevention must be embedded in ordinary governance and financing

Preventive measures should be assessed based on their impact on citizens and on the overall demand for services, including cases where the investment and benefits occur at different points in time or at different levels of service delivery.

4. Municipalities need national structures for reuse, procurement support, and coordinated demand

Documentation, experience, requirements, and assessments should be reusable wherever appropriate. At the same time, the municipal sector must provide the market with clearer signals regarding shared priority needs, without designing procurements in ways that undermine innovation and supplier diversity.

5. Implementation capacity must be built as a lasting municipal capability

Municipalities’ ability to implement change depends on leadership, competence, learning, and systematic benefit realization. Policy instruments must strengthen this capacity and be accessible to municipalities with limited resources.

6. Clusters must be formalized as national innovation hubs

Clusters are a natural part of the institutional capacity required to implement innovation in practice. Norway Health Tech and other relevant clusters should be given a formal role in the practice-oriented programme and the scaling fund as connectors between municipal demand and the supplier market.

The Mission must have a clear implementation model

NHT supports the committee’s proposal for a targeted mission for the welfare system of the future. The objective is both to reduce and postpone demand for services through prevention and to increase capacity through better use of society’s collective resources. The committee assumes that the mission will be strategically anchored at the national level, translated into operational focus areas, and implemented with municipalities as the primary arena. The report makes it clear that the mission should not be designed solely from the top down. Government authorities, the municipal sector, social partners, research and innovation environments, businesses, civil society, and citizens should all be involved. NHT supports this approach and believes that a more predictable collaboration between service providers and the broader ecosystem will strengthen both the development and adoption of new solutions.

“The welfare challenges of the future cannot be solved by municipalities alone. Many of the most important solutions must be developed through collaboration between municipalities, the state, volunteers, businesses, citizens, and professional communities.” (Asker Municipality)

The committee proposes an overall structure through the mission, the practice-oriented programme, and the scaling fund. The follow-up process must clarify how stakeholders will participate in governance, prioritization, and implementation, what decision-making roles they will have, and what commitments will be expected of them. It must also be clear who is responsible for taking initiatives from development through implementation and scaling.

“The challenge is to connect stakeholders more effectively and establish more coherent pathways from needs and research to development, testing, documentation, implementation, procurement, and scaling.” (Eitri Health Innovation Centre)

Collaboration must extend beyond idea development and testing. It must also include procurement, financing, implementation, and ongoing operations. Municipalities, citizens, professional communities, and suppliers must be involved early enough for needs and implementation models to be developed together. Many solutions affect multiple parts of the health and care system. Where impact or implementation depends on interaction between municipal health services, general practitioners, and specialist healthcare services, this must be addressed as part of the mission. This does not mean changing existing responsibilities within the health system, but rather ensuring that solutions that work across organizational boundaries are not prevented from reaching scale.

NHT recommends that:

• The mission be given a clear governance and implementation model that defines responsibilities, decision-making roles, and commitments among the state, municipalities, and other stakeholders.
• Municipalities, citizens, businesses, research institutions, and voluntary organizations be involved in prioritization and implementation, not only through consultations or limited development projects.
• Measures that affect several levels of the health and care system be supported by implementation models that clearly define coordination, responsibilities, financing, and benefit realization across organizational boundaries.

From Piloting to Sustainable Operations and Scaling

The report identifies “pilot fatigue” as a persistent challenge. Practice-oriented and local innovation are strengths, but promising solutions too often remain confined to limited projects without becoming embedded in regular operations or transferred to other municipalities. NHT broadly supports the proposals for a practice-oriented programme and a national scaling fund. The programme should provide room for new thinking, early exploration, and implementation, while the fund should support the further development, adaptation, and dissemination of solutions with documented results.

“The most important thing will be to reduce the number of endless small pilot projects run by different actors and move towards larger and more comprehensive plans.” (Helse Bergen)

The challenge in the follow-up process will be to ensure a clear pathway for decision-making between piloting and regular operations. Projects must have clear criteria for what should be documented, who evaluates the results, and what happens when a solution demonstrates impact. It must also be legitimate to discontinue solutions that fail to deliver sufficient impact or are not suitable for continuation.

“The current system provides municipalities with too little support in moving from need identification to procurement, from procurement to implementation, and from pilot to widespread adoption.” (University of Oslo)

NHT believes that publicly funded pilot projects should, from the outset, have clear criteria for impact, continuation, and termination. Where results support implementation, responsibilities, financing, and procurement pathways must be clarified before the project period ends.

Policy Instruments Must Distinguish Between Piloting and Scaling

Our members point out that the timeline of the scaling fund could have a significant impact on whether the instrument actually reduces pilot fatigue. The fund’s phased approach envisages broader piloting from years three to seven, while assessments of which models can be generalized largely take place later in the programme. For solutions that have already demonstrated impact, such a process could result in several additional years of piloting before wider implementation is considered. The risk is that the scaling fund extends the period between documented impact and routine use rather than shortening it.

NHT therefore believes that the fund must provide different pathways for solutions at different levels of maturity. Solutions that still require testing should have the opportunity to do so. Solutions that have already demonstrated impact should be able to enter implementation and scaling pathways more quickly. Documentation requirements must be clear, and the policy instruments cannot assume that all solutions need to start over in the same pilot phase.

Implementation Must Be Assessed Based on Impact

Technology and new solutions do not create benefits in themselves. Their impact depends on how they are integrated into services, which work processes are changed, and whether the organization has the capacity to implement those changes.

“Pilot projects and innovation initiatives must be assessed based on how they contribute to long-term goals, whether they have a realistic path to sustainable operations and scaling, and what capacity they actually free up.” (Sensio)

NHT believes that projects must be monitored and evaluated based on the outcomes they are intended to create for citizens, employees, and services. The number of projects completed or technologies introduced is not a meaningful measure of transformation. Follow-up should include quality, functionality, and user empowerment, as well as changes in work processes and released capacity. Assessments must also account for local variation. A solution that has delivered positive results in one municipality may require different organizational adaptations in another. Scaling should therefore be understood as the systematic reuse of documentation and experience combined with the local adaptations that are necessary.

Policy Instruments Must Finance the Transition to Routine Operations

The committee proposes that the practice-oriented programme and the scaling fund should support implementation, organizational change, learning, and capacity building. NHT believes this must be clearly reflected in eligibility criteria, funding levels, and follow-up mechanisms.

“We need to move from purchasing technology to investing in change.” (Hepro)

Integration, training, service design, change management, and benefits realization must be treated as essential components of these investments. Members also point out that the proposed funding model primarily covers temporary implementation costs in selected pilot projects, while municipalities remain responsible for organizational costs and the costs of routine operations.

This is precisely where many projects stall. A solution may have demonstrated impact and received funding for technology investments and testing, yet still lack financing for system adaptations, integrations, maintenance, updates, contract management, and the organizational changes required for long-term adoption. If these costs must be covered within ordinary municipal budgets without a clear transition model, a key part of the problem identified by the report remains unresolved.

Financing must therefore reduce risk during the transition to routine operations, not only during the piloting phase. It must be clear how municipalities can integrate solutions into ordinary service delivery and how suppliers can obtain a sufficiently predictable basis for planning capacity, further development, and maintenance. The policy instruments must also be accessible to municipalities with limited financial and organizational capacity.

“Large differences in capacity may result in municipalities with strong expertise, leadership capacity, and financial flexibility being best positioned to realize the benefits of new policy instruments. Municipalities with the greatest need for transformation may therefore be the ones with the least capacity to implement change.” (Eigersund Municipality)

The report describes significant differences in municipalities’ ability to plan and implement initiatives. This must be reflected in the design of co-financing requirements, application processes, and project organization. Policy instruments cannot assume the same capacity that they are intended to build.

Responsibilities for operations and governance must be clarified

The scaling fund is proposed as a time-limited instrument operating over a ten-year period. NHT believes it must be clarified what will happen to solutions that have been implemented and scaled with support from the fund once the funding period ends. If the fund contributes to national or broad inter-municipal adoption of solutions, responsibilities for ongoing operations, contract management, and further development must be defined before funding is withdrawn.

It must also be clear who is responsible for maintaining shared documentation and supporting municipalities that adopt the solutions at a later stage. This clarification should be included in the fund’s criteria from the outset. The objective must be for the fund to build lasting structures and sustainable operating models, rather than creating a portfolio of solutions that lack clear ownership and governance after ten years.

NHT recommends that:

• The scaling fund provide separate pathways for solutions that still require testing and for solutions that have already demonstrated impact and are ready for implementation and scaling.
• Publicly funded pilot projects have clear criteria from the outset for impact, continuation, and termination, as well as a plan for how responsibilities, financing, and procurement will be clarified if results justify implementation.
• The practice-oriented programme and the scaling fund finance both technological and organizational costs involved in the transition to routine operations, not only the testing phase itself.
• A clear model be established for the operation, governance, and further development of solutions after support from the scaling fund has ended.
• The policy instruments provide hands-on implementation support to municipalities with limited capacity and are designed so that co-financing requirements and application processes do not exclude these municipalities.

Prevention and self-management must be embedded in ordinary governance

NHT supports the report’s ambition to reduce and postpone the need for services through prevention and health promotion. The committee emphasizes that preventive efforts must begin early, before citizens require more extensive services. If prevention is to remain a long-term priority, it must be integrated into municipal governance and financing. The follow-up process must ensure that prevention does not become a separate project area alongside ordinary services.

“We need to focus on assistive technologies and digital tools before people become service users, and citizens must be supported in finding and adopting solutions themselves.” (Oslo Municipality)

Prevention is about enabling citizens to better manage their own health and everyday lives. Documented solutions must therefore be linked to relevant care and follow-up pathways, rather than being standalone tools that individuals are expected to find and use on their own. Service users, citizens, and family caregivers must have a meaningful role in the design and delivery of services.

“Users are not passive recipients, but active participants who help shape services.” (Haslum Volunteer Centre)

Several municipalities also point out that prevention is not only about earlier intervention within health and care services, but also about action across education, employment, culture, volunteering, housing, and local communities throughout the life course. Preventive measures face a financing challenge that must be addressed. Costs often arise before benefits are realized, and those benefits may accrue to a different budget or another part of the public sector. The report acknowledges that long-term investments in prevention can generate returns for both municipal and national budgets over time. The follow-up process must clarify how the policy instruments will address this challenge.

“Treatments that enable people to live more independent lives and participate more actively in society should be viewed as part of society’s overall capacity, not merely as a cost.” (Novartis Norway)

Measures that demonstrably maintain function, strengthen self-management, or reduce future demand for services must be assessed based on their overall value. This does not mean that every anticipated benefit should qualify for funding, but rather that policy instruments must be able to support initiatives with documented potential for impact, even when costs and benefits do not appear within the same budget.

“Technologies that reduce the need for treatment should also be supported by financial incentives.” (Anue)

Digital tools can make prevention more accessible and scalable, but there is currently no clear pathway from documented impact to systematic use within services. NHT believes that a national, quality-assured gateway to digital tools for healthy living, self-management, and follow-up should be explored and established (an “app library”). At the same time, a clear system must be established for linking documented solutions to care pathways and funding mechanisms within municipal services and general practice. Such a solution must have clear responsibilities for assessment and governance, transparent documentation requirements, and a well-defined relationship with existing national structures. It must also be clear whether the solution is intended to provide information, recommendations, or a basis for funding and use within services.

NHT recommends that:

• Prevention and self-management be integrated into municipalities’ ordinary governance, financing, and performance management, with objectives linked to function, participation, and reduced or postponed demand for services.
• The practice-oriented programme and the scaling fund be able to support documented measures where costs and benefits arise at different points in time or accrue to different stakeholders.
• A national, quality-assured gateway to digital tools for healthy living, self-management, and follow-up be explored and established, with clear responsibility for assessment, governance, and integration with municipal services and general practice.

National structures and procurement must make scaling easier

The report highlights the need for better dissemination of solutions, more systematic knowledge development, and stronger national support functions. The committee also proposes exploring a model for a shared procurement service and a more coordinated support function for the municipal sector. NHT supports this direction. At the same time, the follow-up process must clarify what should be addressed at the national level, what can be reused across municipalities, and what individual municipalities must continue to assess and decide locally.

Documentation and assessments must be reusable

Contributions from our members show that municipalities and suppliers spend considerable resources on assessments that are wholly or partly repeated at the local level.

“Promising solutions often remain isolated initiatives, and municipalities spend significant resources repeating assessments individually, without systematic dissemination.” (University of Oslo)

Standardization, data sharing, and interoperability are fundamental to scaling digital solutions. Feedback from our members shows that these remain among the most significant barriers to scaling today. Effective solutions often stall when confronted with different systems, local assessments, and a lack of common requirements.

“Common requirements should be developed for video services, access to health records, measurement data, documentation, information security, and interoperability across municipalities.” (Dignio)

The follow-up process must clarify what should be standardized, what can be assessed locally, and who is responsible for maintaining the knowledge base as technologies, regulations, and use cases evolve. One area where the need for shared assessments and national guidance is becoming increasingly evident is artificial intelligence and other digital health technologies subject to complex regulatory requirements. Our members highlight the need for clearer national guidance on the interface between medical devices, artificial intelligence, privacy, and information security.

“Predictable regulatory practice is a prerequisite for serious suppliers to invest in safe solutions, and for municipalities and general practitioners to adopt them with confidence.” (Kernel)

Several members also point to the need for regulatory sandboxes, testing and validation environments, and access to representative data. These measures could help accelerate regulatory clarification and reduce risk in the development, procurement, and scaling of new solutions.

Procurement expertise and contract management must be shared

The report notes that the main challenges associated with innovative procurement are largely related to capacity, competence, and risk, rather than regulation alone. NHT considers this an important point that must be addressed in the follow-up process. Several members emphasize that the challenge cannot be solved simply by selecting individual municipalities for new pilot initiatives. Municipalities also need support with procurement itself.

“The challenge is not solved by selecting individual municipalities as pilots. It is solved when procurement work, requirements specifications, and contract management are carried out once by someone other than each individual municipality, and then reused by many.” (Medbric)

Where municipalities have similar needs, this work should increasingly be carried out once and reused by multiple municipalities. This does not mean that all municipalities must purchase the same solution, nor that local decisions should be replaced by national ones. It means that municipalities should not each have to build the same expertise and repeat the same preparatory work. A national support function should therefore provide more than guidance documents and general advisory services. It should be able to develop and maintain reusable needs assessments, requirements specifications, contract models, and contract management tools in areas where municipalities share common needs.

Coordinated demand without unnecessary centralization

NHT supports the committee’s assessment that municipal purchasing power and procurement competence must be strengthened. The report proposes examining a model for a shared procurement service and a more coordinated support function covering both straightforward joint procurements and more complex innovation partnerships. Today, suppliers face fragmented demand.

“Procurement spread across 357 municipalities is a barrier to scaling validated health technologies, and the signal sent to the supplier market is too weak.” (Bulbitech)

Stronger coordination can provide greater predictability and clearer signals about the needs prioritized by the municipal sector. The committee also points out that a shared vision can make it easier for businesses and investors to assess the risks and opportunities associated with developing and scaling new solutions.

Today, the municipal sector lacks sufficiently clear and long-term signals regarding which challenges should be prioritized through innovation and technology. The follow-up to the report should therefore contribute to greater predictability regarding the areas where the municipal sector seeks to develop and scale solutions. Coordinating needs and demand is not the same as conducting all procurement through a single centralized process.

“The point is not to purchase more collectively, but to coordinate demand.” (Kernel)

NHT believes that any future shared procurement service must include clear mechanisms for distinguishing between areas where common agreements and standardization are appropriate and areas where procurement processes should encourage innovation, testing, or competition between different solutions. This is particularly important for smaller and newer suppliers. If procurement processes become overly complex and resource-intensive, barriers to market entry will increase. Considerations related to competition, innovation, and supplier diversity must therefore be built into the design of the model.

Procurement must also be viewed as part of the implementation pathway. The objective of procurement cannot be the contract itself, but the adoption of solutions, the transformation of work processes, and the realization of benefits. Early market dialogue can contribute to a better understanding of needs but must be linked to clear requirements for impact and implementation.

Voluntary participation must not exclude municipalities with the greatest needs

The committee assumes that any future shared procurement service would be voluntary. Local decision-making authority and municipal autonomy are important considerations. At the same time, several members point to risks associated with schemes that rely heavily on active participation. Municipalities that already possess strong procurement expertise, organizational capacity, and financial flexibility are often best positioned to evaluate and use new support functions. Municipalities with more limited administrative capacity may have a greater need for coordination and support, but less capacity to engage with and adopt such arrangements.

NHT therefore believes that coordination should be the default approach where municipalities share common needs. Participation in common framework agreements, requirements specifications, and support functions should be the standard option, while individual municipalities should retain the flexibility to choose alternative solutions when local circumstances warrant it. This approach preserves municipal autonomy while enabling the benefits of coordination to be achieved at greater scale.

For this to work in practice, national solutions must also be easy to adopt. Common requirements specifications, agreements, and support functions must be readily accessible, and national and regional support organizations should help municipalities with limited capacity through practical support for procurement, implementation, and benefits realization.

The goal should not be for all municipalities to conduct the same procurements, but rather to ensure that shared support functions and coordinated demand benefit the entire municipal sector, not only the most resource-rich municipalities.

NHT recommends that:

• A national structure be established to make documentation, experience, regulatory guidance, and elements of the assessment basis for health technologies available for reuse, with a clear distinction between the national knowledge base and municipalities’ local responsibilities.
• A national support function develop and maintain reusable needs assessments, requirements specifications, contract models, and contract management tools in areas where municipalities share common needs.
• National guidance and relevant testing and validation environments be developed for artificial intelligence and other digital health technologies subject to complex regulatory requirements.
• Coordination of needs, priorities, requirements specifications, and procurement processes become the default approach where municipalities share common needs, while municipalities retain the option to choose alternative solutions when local circumstances warrant it.
• Any shared procurement service distinguish between procurements that can be standardized and procurements designed to promote innovation, while safeguarding competition, supplier diversity, local adaptation, and a viable pathway to implementation.
• The municipal sector develop stronger mechanisms for coordinating needs, priorities, and demand, providing the market with clearer and more predictable signals.
• Municipalities with limited capacity receive hands-on support for procurement, implementation, and benefits realization, ensuring that shared support functions and coordinated demand benefit the entire municipal sector.

Implementation capacity must be built as a lasting municipal capability

The report describes significant differences in capacity across municipalities and highlights leadership, competence, culture, and organizational factors as critical enablers of transformation. The committee also assumes that the state must play a more active role in building capacity and competence within municipalities.

NHT shares this assessment. Implementation capacity is about municipalities’ ability to lead change, develop their organizations, learn throughout the process, and realize benefits. Technology is only one element of this transformation. Our members experience that new technologies are often layered onto existing work processes without corresponding changes to organizational structures or routines. The result is frequently increased complexity rather than greater capacity. Implementation capacity cannot be built one project at a time.

If expertise disappears when project funding ends, the next implementation effort will begin with many of the same challenges. The practice-oriented programme should therefore be used to build lasting professional environments and capabilities within municipalities, not merely temporary project capacity.

Benefits realization cannot be treated as a post-project activity that begins once a project is completed. Expected benefits, necessary organizational changes, and responsibility for follow-up must be defined at an early stage. Measurement frameworks must be adapted to the purpose and maturity of the initiative. During an early exploration phase, learning and clarification will be important outcomes. During implementation and scaling, requirements for documented impact must become more rigorous.

Knowledge gained from implementation must be shared in a way that makes it useful to others. Municipalities need insight into which organizational changes were necessary, which prerequisites had to be in place, what required local adaptation, and why certain initiatives may ultimately have been discontinued.

At the same time, national support functions should help relieve municipalities of responsibilities in areas where it is not efficient for each municipality to develop the same specialized expertise. This includes procurement, legal assessments, requirements specifications, evaluation of documentation, and contract management. Lasting municipal implementation capacity does not mean that every municipality must be able to do everything independently. It means that municipalities must possess sufficient competence to understand their own needs, make informed decisions, lead organizational change, and follow up on benefits realization, while making use of specialized national and regional support functions where these provide a more effective approach.

Our members also point out that implementation capacity does not reside solely within individual municipalities. Regional innovation ecosystems, test environments, clusters, research institutions, and incubators already serve as connecting points between municipalities, researchers, businesses, and users. The follow-up to the report should build upon and mobilize these existing structures rather than creating parallel systems.

NHT recommends that:

• The practice-oriented programme be used to build lasting municipal capabilities in implementation leadership, organizational development, and benefits realization.
• Municipalities with limited capacity receive hands-on support in leading change, adapting work processes, and realizing benefits.
• National and regional support functions relieve municipalities of responsibilities in areas where it is not efficient for each municipality to develop the same specialized expertise.
• Lessons learned from implementation be documented in a way that enables other municipalities to understand what can be transferred, what local adaptations are required, and why certain initiatives were not continued.

Conclusion

NHT believes that NOU 2026:6 provides a strong foundation for the development of the new welfare municipality. The committee identifies the most important challenges and proposes relevant policy instruments for prevention, innovation, implementation, and scaling.

The key challenge in the follow-up process will be ensuring that these policy instruments work together and enable faster implementation. The mission must provide direction, the practice-oriented programme must give municipalities the space and support needed for development and implementation, and the scaling fund must make it possible to scale documented solutions more rapidly.

The committee notes that it has not had the capacity to examine “the framework conditions for business-driven innovation, for example those related to existing cluster activities or proposals for capacity-based competition.” As a result of this limitation, Norway Health Tech and other clusters are not discussed in the report. This omission weakens the connection between national innovation policy and the municipal welfare development described in the report. Norway Health Tech and other relevant clusters should be given a formal role in the practice-oriented programme and the scaling fund, serving as a bridge between municipal demand and the supplier market.

NHT is pleased to make our knowledge, network, and the experience of our member organizations available for the continued work.

Members who contributed directly to the development of this response

Novartis Norway, ExAC AS, Bulbitech AS, Anue AS, Bouvet, Helse Bergen, University of Oslo, Eigersund Municipality, Helse Stavanger HF, Medbric AS, Oslo Municipality, OsloMet, Sensio, EITRI Health Innovation Centre, NordicDx AS, Norwegian Computing Center, Dignio AS, VAR Healthcare, Essity Norway AS, Hepro AS, Lillestrøm Municipality, Asker Municipality, Nørs, and Kernel. Additional contributor: Haslum Volunteer Centre.