has been published in nal form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sea2.12050. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.
Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Although they are important, the facts and figures concerning global energy poverty and the health effects of burning biomass are not our focus. Our analysis questions the functionalist constructions of "community" and "household," which are being depicted as ideal scales at which energy project initiatives should be directed. There is a tendency to assume a number of things: that communities (and households) have clearly delineated boundaries, that they provide a nurturing or cohesive focus for energy provision, that they are spatially and locationally specific, and that they operate according to predictable norms of energy consumption constructed to flesh out the ideal of a linear, evolutionary "energy ladder" up which communities and households progress. We suggest, instead, that because households and communities have Campbell et al. 3become spatially and relationally more fluid, more flexible, and indistinct with globalization, this sharp delineation, if it were ever true, has become far more blurred. Communities need conceptual reenergizing.In respect of the new energy era, households and communities are being rewritten as "apparatuses of knowledge" (Foucault 1977:106). These are technocratic apparatuses that give preeminence to the territorial, rather than the relational, dimensions of such designations (Gusfield 1975) to suit the potential of available technologies. In some low-income contexts (e.g., Bangladesh), the household has been depicted as the critical arena for intervention through the emblematic functionality of the Solar Home System. In other contexts, community energy is promoted, with the form or scale of community often being dictated by the mini-, micro-, and nanogrids that, in claiming to fit a particular scale of community, end up defining it. Walker and Devine-Wright (2008) have already pointed out the sociological emptiness of simple locality and labeling of projects as "community energy," when processes of community engagement can actually be quite minimal.
Networking communities for researchResponding to growing curiosity about low-carbon energy technologies globally, the work of the Low Carbon Energy for Development Network (LCEDN; supported by the U.K. The scale at which the rollout of these game-changing technologies is set is mostly determined by technolo...