This paper advances the understanding of the politics of governing energy for development projects by non-state actors. Building on Tania Murray Li’s work on trusteeship, and drawing on governmentality studies, along with ethnographic insights from two low carbon energy projects, this paper illuminates two less examined aspects of politics of energy projects. First, the designs of these projects embed particular imagined subjects, and specific techniques, to afford governance. In particular, trustees use techniques of expertise, techniques of legitimacy, and techniques of subjectivity. Second, trusteeship is a contingent phenomenon as a clear line between trustees and subjects is often missing. Many actors, simultaneously trustees and subjects, also carry socio-cultural subjectivities of class, caste and gender, which complicates the conduct of conduct. Some trustees look for benefiting people, some for profits, some to make a political career and, yet others, to support their social groups. By engaging with trusteeship, the paper flags that the governance techniques do not always benefit the ‘beneficiaries’ and are often counterproductive. The article emerges from nine-month ethnographic research done in 2012–13 in five villages in India using participant observations, interviews and group discussion, in addition to analysis of project websites and documentary materials.

本文提高了非国家行为者对发展项目的能源治理政治的理解。本文基于塔尼亚·默里·李（Tania Murray Li）的受托工作，并借鉴政府性研究，以及来自两个低碳能源项目的人种学见识，阐述了能源项目政治中两个未经审查的方面。首先，这些项目的设计嵌入了特定的想象主题和特定技术，以进行治理。特别是，受托人使用专业技术，合法性技术和主观性技术。第二，托管是一种偶然的现象，因为托管人与主体之间的界线常常缺失。许多演员（同时是受托人和臣民）也带有阶级，种姓和性别的社会文化主观性，这使行为变得复杂。一些受托人寻求使人民受益，一些受托人寻求利润，一些受托人从事政治事业，还有一些受托人寻求支持其社会团体。通过参与托管，该文件表明治理技术并不总是使“受益人”受益，而且往往适得其反。本文来自于2012-13年度在印度五个村庄进行的为期9个月的民族志研究，其中包括对参与者网站的观察，访谈和小组讨论，以及对项目网站和文献资料的分析。该文件指出，治理技术并不总是使“受益人”受益，而且往往适得其反。本文来自于2012-13年度在印度五个村庄进行的为期9个月的民族志研究，其中包括对参与者网站的观察，访谈和小组讨论，以及对项目网站和文献资料的分析。该文件指出，治理技术并不总是使“受益人”受益，而且往往适得其反。本文来自于2012-13年度在印度五个村庄进行的为期9个月的民族志研究，其中包括对参与者网站的观察，访谈和小组讨论，以及对项目网站和文献资料的分析。