Ensuring access to affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy for all is a crucial pillar of sustainable development (United Nations, 2015), supporting as much economic development as the satisfaction of a large variety of human needs (Bhatia and Angelou, 2015; Thomson et al., 2017; Nadimi and Tokimatsu, 2018; Robić and Ančić, 2018). At the same time, however, generation, distribution, and consumption of energy account for more than 70% of global GHG emissions (Climate Watch, 2019), a result of approximately 81% of global energy demand being met by fossil fuels including oil, coal, and gas (International Energy Agency, 2019). Urgent efforts toward the decarbonization of energy systems are needed to maintain global warming below 1.5°C. over pre-industrial levels (Falk et al., 2019; IPCC, 2019a).

The need to simultaneously ensure a secure energy provision, advance toward a more environmentally benign energy matrix, and reduce energy poverty, is known as the energy trilemma, a key challenge for advancing toward sustainable energy development (International Energy Agency, 2018; World Energy Council, 2019). Facing this trilemma requires devising strategies for a just energy transition (McCauley and Heffron, 2018), which complies with climate goals while ensuring energy justice.

Cities play a key role in tackling this trilemma: they are hotspots in the global carbon cycle, accounting for the majority of the CO₂ emissions from global final energy use (Nangini et al., 2019), while they also influence and mediate the effects of climate change on society (McCarthy et al., 2010). Conversely, cities can act as frontrunners and sites of innovative climate action and governance (van der Heijden, 2019). This fact urges the development of an integrated approach to design climate-sensitive urban governance, i.e., able to enact mitigative, adaptive, and transformative efforts in the face of a changing planet (Brondizio et al., 2016; Bai, 2018), while also fostering justice and equality. However, up to this point, urban governance remains a strongly fragmented field targeted by a variety of epistemic communities encompassing urban planning, disaster management, and climate vulnerability, to quote just a few (Wolfram et al., 2017).

At the same time, a significant interlinkage exists between urban and energy planning and priorities, so that a stronger understanding is needed of the spatial, political, and ethical dimensions of urban energy transitions, including how these may either transform or reproduce existing forms of injustice and segregation (Rutherford and Coutard, 2014; Debizet et al., 2016; Huang and Broto, 2018). Along these lines, an emerging literature on Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) and Energy Positive Neighborhoods (EPN) has been arguing for a form of urban planning seeking to synergically reduce GHG emissions and alleviate energy inequalities by means of a higher energy efficiency and renewable energy generation (Ala-Juusela et al., 2016; Monti et al., 2016; Walker et al., 2017).

Fostering a just transition based, for example, on PEDs or EPNs, requires paying deep attention to the context in which the transition occurs: territorial characteristics and dynamics, in fact, influence not only the particular energy needs and acceptability thresholds of energy services but also the chances of success of energy transitions efforts and the emergence of potential unintended consequences of said transitions upon the inequality and vulnerability of the target communities (Bouzarovski and Tirado Herrero, 2017a; Frantál and Nováková, 2019; Urquiza et al., 2019; O'Sullivan et al., 2020). Moreover, it must be noted that while often there is a tendency on the part of scholarship and public policy to grant absolute preference to “modern” energy services (mostly based on electricity), place-based evidence discards the possibility to conceive a unique hierarchy among energy sources: not only households tend to mix different sources in their daily routine (combining different kinds of technologies), but the relative desirability of each of these tend to vary according to the specific context, including socioecological, sociotechnical conditions, and sociocultural practices (Scarpellini et al., 2015; García-Ochoa and Graizbord, 2016; Herington et al., 2017; Billi et al., 2018).

On the other hand, methodologies and indicators used to gauge energy poverty and deprivation have tended to pay limited attention to territorial contexts. Even pioneering studies struggling to incorporate these variables have mostly focused their analysis on the household domain. In contrast, little attention has been paid to: (a) non-household manifestations of EP (e.g., related to transportation, workplace, education and health institutions, public lighting, among others), or (b) extra-domestic determinants of household energy deprivation. Moreover, there is a lack of comprehensive approaches clarifying how energy deprivation may be affected by context dynamics, including technological, socio-political, and climatic trends.

To fill this gap, this paper aims to outline an analytical framework to examine what we call “territorial energy vulnerability” (TEV in the following), understood as the propensity of a territory to see its ability to ensure high-quality energy services affected by hazards or dangers such as climate change or socio-natural disasters. TEV is not meant to be a substitute, but rather as a complement, for household EP measures, struggling to provide context and depth to the analysis of energy deprivation and just energy transitions. Territorial energy vulnerability is animated by a holistic understanding of energy security, understanding the latter as the capability of a territory to ensure equitable access—in terms of both quality and quantity—to resilient and sustainable energy services furthering the human and economic development of its population, respecting both planetary and local ecosystem limits (Urquiza and Billi, 2020).

To inform such a framework, we combine notions and insights from energy poverty and sociotechnical transitions literature with those deriving from a socio-anthropological understanding of territorial dynamics, plus the latest advancement of the climate change community on the conceptualization of risk and vulnerability. Also, the integrated view of urban planning proposed in PEDs literature, where multiple energy uses are considered simultaneously (e.g., households, public luminaires, commercial, etc.), and the importance of context-specific trajectories to PEDs is at the core of our territorial framework (Ala-Juusela et al., 2016; Lindholm et al., 2021; Moreno et al., 2021). An analysis based on TEV framework can facilitate the implementation of a just energy transition based on context-specific guidelines and policies coherent with existing concepts of energy poverty and decarbonization pathways (such as PEDs).

To illustrate our framework, we analyze three case studies of major cities in Chile: Arica, Los Andes, and Coyhaique. Chile is a perfect testbed for our approach both because of its strongly varying climatic, economic, and sociocultural characteristics. Because of its condition of a “middle-development” country, it represents a category that has traditionally been under-attended by energy poverty literature (Urquiza et al., 2019). Noticeably, while in this paper we develop the framework with an explicit focus on urban spaces, in the future it could be extended to rural or peri-urban contexts.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows: section Literature review provides a literature review on existing attempts to include a territorial perspective in energy poverty research, discussing the lack of complex and multiscalar understandings of territorial dynamics. Section Theoretical framework illustrates our analytical framework. section Description of case studies introduces our case studies. Section Results presents the data and methods used in the cases studied. Section Results and section Discussion respectively present and discuss our results to broaden our understanding of energy poverty and just energy transition in cities. Finally, the article is closed in section Conclusion with the main conclusions.

Energy poverty has been traditionally measured through either of two pathways: on the one hand, economic indicators, such as the well-known “Ten Percent Rule” (Boardman, 1991), the “Low Income-High Cost” (Hills, 2012), the “Minimum Income Standard” (Moore, 2012) among others, that had mainly focused on the affordability of energy expenditure in high-development countries (Urquiza et al., 2019). On the other hand, energy access indicators such as the Multidimensional Energy Poverty Index (Nussbaumer et al., 2012) have concentrated on geographical or technological barriers to energy, observed in access to technology. This aspect has tended to be especially relevant in low-development countries (Urquiza et al., 2019).

However, both affordability and access-oriented energy poverty indicators must assume quality standards as evaluation criteria (Urquiza et al., 2019). Quality can thus be visualized as a third “hidden” dimension of energy poverty, in two relevant senses: as underlying the need to adopt quality standards suitable to different particular socioeconomic, cultural, climate, and geographical conditions as a precondition to evaluate both energy affordability and access; and as an object of evaluation in its own sake—e.g., in terms of reliability or safeness of energy provision—. As argued in Urquiza et al. (2019), this hidden dimension is significant when observing energy poverty in territorially heterogenous, middle-development countries like Chile.

The quality dimension, in turn, drive us to think about patterns and determinants of energy availability—or lack thereof—in a territory and how this impacts household energy poverty. In this context, the link between the energy trilemma (International Energy Agency, 2018; World Energy Council, 2019) is fundamental: to tackle energy poverty, we need to improve reliable and high-quality energy provision, that is to say, adequate, reliable, safe, and non-polluting energy, to reach an environmentally benign energy matrix. However, energy provision depends on territorial structural conditions (such as infrastructure, politics, markets, among others) that contribute to reproduce spatial inequalities related to energy. Bouzarovski et al. (2015) have emphasized the importance of understanding the sociotechnical legacies of countries' development trajectories to understand the political and economic landscape that frame energy poverty expressions; these conditions can be understood as driving forces of energy poverty.

The effect of household characteristics on the probabilities of becoming energy poor is well known (Imbert et al., 2016; Belaïd, 2018; Primc et al., 2019), but recent literature has expressed the importance of a geographical analysis where energy poverty conditions can relate to phenomena occurring at a larger scale (Bouzarovski and Simcock, 2017; Robinson et al., 2019). Scientific literature offers at least two different ways to understand the spatial dimension of energy poverty.

First, some authors have emphasized the importance of spatializing energy poverty, e.g., understanding it through a spatial lens as an energy injustice problem (Bouzarovski and Simcock, 2017; Bouzarovski et al., 2017; Robinson et al., 2019). They have identified how spatial variables can explain energy poverty expressions more precisely than other variables like household socioeconomic conditions (Jimenez, 2017; Besagni and Borgarello, 2019; Mattioli et al., 2019). This has been studied especially in the case of Central and Eastern European countries (Bouzarovski et al., 2015; Bouzarovski and Tirado Herrero, 2017a; Sokołowski et al., 2020) but increasingly in other European countries (Besagni and Borgarello, 2019; Mattioli et al., 2019; O'Sullivan et al., 2020), highlighting geographical disparities and central-periphery relations in the EU community (Bouzarovski and Tirado Herrero, 2017b; Golubchikov and O'Sullivan, 2020). In the same context, energy poverty incidence has also been related to neighborhoods' urban and architectural conditions, emphasizing the importance of understanding the historical context and development of housing complexes in urban and rural areas (Besagni and Borgarello, 2019).

The second perspective of territorial effects on energy poverty has paid attention to climatic and geographical conditions that generate differentiated energy poverty expressions, such as in the case of islands (Wolf et al., 2016; Surroop et al., 2018; Ioannidis et al., 2019; Lozano et al., 2019). An emphasis has been made regarding how altitude (Katsoulakos and Kaliampakos, 2016; Papada and Kaliampakos, 2016), temperature (Puzzolo et al., 2016; Kerimray et al., 2018; Besagni and Borgarello, 2019), and climatic variability (Ioannidis et al., 2019) relate to different energy needs that households can have. Similarly, literature has stressed the importance of daily (Puzzolo et al., 2016) and seasonal variability (Puzzolo et al., 2016; Pollard et al., 2018) of these conditions. This group of the energy poverty literature usually emphasizes how remote (Dugoua et al., 2017; Pollard et al., 2018), mountainous (Katsoulakos and Kaliampakos, 2016; Papada and Kaliampakos, 2016), or isolated areas face specific conditions that create barriers for improved access to cleaner, more efficient fuels, posing a challenge to energy transitions.

Both perspectives, the spatial expression of energy poverty and geophysical conditions as a cause of energy poverty, have been observed across different scales, for example, climate macrozones that can produce a different heat demand (Besagni and Borgarello, 2019); geographical conditions like isolation (Dugoua et al., 2017) that can condition energy access; the spatial distribution within a city (Mattioli et al., 2019) or between different regions (Bouzarovski and Tirado Herrero, 2017a); among others. Other studies have focused on how economic conditions at a regional scale can increase the risk and prevalence of energy poverty conditions creating an regional risk measure or structural energy poverty vulnerability, such as energy prices, income, unemployment rate, labor market conditions, energy market characteristics, among others (Dodson and Sipe, 2006, 2008; Velte et al., 2013; Recalde et al., 2019).

Furthermore, some authors (Bouzarovski and Thomson, 2018) identify differences within urban contexts, producing different landscapes and typologies of energy vulnerability, forming particular socio-spatial forms of inequity. This literature also concludes that expenditure indicators are insufficient to describe the complex ways in which socio-spatial vulnerabilities interplay toward an intensification of energy poverty conditions, related to equally complex geographical and demographic contexts (Robinson et al., 2018).

The relationship between these two perspectives—that is, between the literature on the spatial expressions of energy poverty and the literature on climate and geography as drivers of energy poverty—is complex, sometimes overlapping (Bouzarovski and Simcock, 2017). Despite these considerations, this literature still fails to integrate both perspectives better and describe territorial determinants of energy poverty.

Regarding this issue, there have been some notable contributions in this sense from Robinson et al. (2019) and Mattioli et al. (2019). These authors have made efforts to assess the occurrence of energy poverty at a smaller, neighborhood-like scale. Similarly, Besagni and Borgarello (2019) and Pollard et al. (2018) have made efforts to produce a detailed sub-national disparities outlook. All these proposals, however, support what Bouzarovski and Simcock (2017) have noted, namely that “aggregating and averaging figures over units of political and material space both reveals and hides differences; justice (…) defined at one scale does not necessarily mean justice is achieved elsewhere” (p. 642). The recognition of the complex spatial embeddedness (Bouzarovski and Tirado Herrero, 2017a) of energy poverty is, however, still tied to the availability of sufficiently detailed, spatially disaggregated data.

Another aspect not commonly covered by energy poverty literature is that energy poverty conditions, i.e., unequal access to high-quality energy services, can also occur outside the household, especially in crucial social services such as education and health institutions, but also in diverse workplaces like offices, outdoor work, commerce, among others. Some articles have done this by focusing on relevant energy uses that are often not considered in the broader context of energy poverty, such as transport (Mattioli et al., 2019). The recognition of the relevance of educational, health-related and other social and productive uses of energy has been present mostly in the energy transition literature (Wolf et al., 2016; Surroop et al., 2018; Lozano et al., 2019).

Finally, and most important for this paper, there remains a limited understanding of how spatial and territorial determinants could mediate the vulnerability of the energy system to potential climatic, economic, or socio-political threats, thus potentially generating or increasing future energy deprivation. Hence, recent literature suggests the importance of developing a dynamic perspective of energy poverty that may address this aspect, where not only the analysis of the current energy access gaps is necessary, but also a reference to short and long-term impacts on high-quality, equitable energy access, that is, the risk of the energy system (Urquiza and Billi, 2020).

Several studies (Dugoua et al., 2017; Baptista, 2018; Besagni and Borgarello, 2019; Munro and Bartlett, 2019) emphasize the importance of considering the historical context of specific technical and sociocultural trajectories, and how energy poverty changes not only through space but also through time. However, usually, there is a lack of attention to the “risk” component of energy security, especially considering the impacts of the new globally changing scenarios. Relevant scholarship on energy vulnerabilities (Middlemiss and Gillard, 2015; Petrova, 2018; Ioannidis et al., 2019; Mattioli et al., 2019; Robinson et al., 2019) has focused on household sensitivity toward energy poverty while neglecting a broader systemic perspective that integrates environmental hazards (e.g., climate change) and sociotechnical complexities (e.g., energy transitions as a source of uncertainty to some energy system actors). Some authors have emphasized that energy transitions can increase social vulnerability—rather than decreasing it—highlighting the need to consider the links between energy vulnerability and energy transitions from a geographical perspective (Bouzarovski et al., 2017).

Even though there is a growing literature that considers, on the one hand, energy vulnerability (Middlemiss and Gillard, 2015; Petrova, 2018) and on the other the multiscalar nature of the problem, there is a need for a comprehensive framework able to embrace the complex territorial determinants of energy vulnerability and poverty, considering not only sociotechnical conditions but also socioecological and sociocultural domains. A narrowed approach can cause energy transition policies to rely on energy poverty and security measures that underestimate the complexities of sociotechnical processes existing in-between households and with national energy systems.

Improving the attention to the “risk” component through a TEV lens can provide a tighter link with sustainable development and energy transition literature, providing more tools to analyze temporal dynamics within energy poverty.

To test the heuristic potential of the TEV framework proposed in this paper, we analyze three middle-sized Chilean cities located in different climates: Arica, a city located at the northern coast of Chile with a hot-desert climate; Los Andes, a cold semi-arid inland city located in a valley near Andes mountains; and Coyhaique, a tundra inland city located in the southern extreme of Chile, within near Patagonia (Sarricolea et al., 2017). A brief description of case studies is presented in this section, providing general geophysical, climate and demographic characteristics.

As stated above, we follow an indicator-based methodological structure inspired by the work of IPCC Assessment Report 5 and the Center for Climate concept of risk, Resilience Research (CR2) Vulnerability Framework and GIZ climate change impact evaluation methodological guidelines [IPCC, 2012; GIZ, 2017, 2018; Centro de Ciencia del Clima y la Resiliencia (CR)2, 2018].

To describe the territory's sensitivity factors related to hazards and gaps in equitable access to high-quality energy services, a set of indicators were estimated for the three case studies (see Table 2). Although the proposed framework in section Theoretical framework comprises six dimensions (economic, demographic, infrastructure, technology, culture, and knowledge), in this article only four of them will be included due to lack of data related to culture and knowledge dimensions.

Finally, to describe the resilience of the sociotechnical system, we use analysis of the set of indicators presented in Table 3 to understand better the flexibility, memory, and self-transformation characteristics of the system.

In this section, we offer a description of sensitivity characteristics of Arica, Los Andes, and Coyhaique that impact present and, probably, future conditions of energy access and could become barriers to just energy transition policies. Also, we describe some characteristics of the energy system and territory that can help to project response and adaptation capacity (resilience) of each case study.

The results presented above show how climatic, demographic, economic, infrastructural, technological, and institutional variables combine into very different profiles of TEV across the three case studies.

Arica is the largest city analyzed where sensitivity characteristics related to the presence of age vulnerable population (both children and elderly), higher proportion of both income and multidimensional poverty and as an older city, most housing stock was constructed without regulation. Resilience capacity in this city seems to be transforming as renewable electricity generation (solar and hydro) covers up to 74% of total installed capacity and is expected to grow over time (Ministerio de Energía, 2015). Nonetheless, its dependency on the national electric system to meet its domestic demand could be a source of risk if climate change impacts or socio-natural disasters compromise its integration. These issues should be considered in its current process to define the Local Energy Strategy to increase the city's response and adaptive capacity and enhance the energy transition process. Distributed photovoltaic potential of this city is higher compared to national average, and the inclusion of PED concept into local policies could increase its autonomy and redundancy.

Los Andes has a similar demographic profile to Arica, but the former's population size and poverty incidence (both income and multidimensional) are smaller. As only 49% of its housing stock was built before the year 2000, Los Andes could be an example of recent developed cities in Chile under new dwelling regulation. There are large and diverse electricity generators near this city. Its service interruptions index is the smaller of these three cities, and its resilience capacity looks well-suited to confront climate change and socio-natural disaster impacts. However, this condition is explained as other mid-size cities, and large metropolises (such as Valparaíso and Santiago) are located near and depend on the same generation, hence its capacity should be planned to integrate all of this growing cities. On the other hand, its dependency on fossil fuel-based electricity generation could endanger this capacity as a major transformation is required to meet NDC Chilean compromises on GHG emissions (Gobierno de Chile, 2020). In this regard, PED could become a transformative guideline to benefit from the photovoltaic potential and increase distributed energy importance.

Coyhaique is the smaller and is the one who faces the coldest weather conditions of these three cities. Although the presence of age vulnerable population (elderly and children) and income poverty is smaller, probably due to the same harsh weather condition, the multidimensional poverty incidence could be symptomatic of a different kind of sensitivity. The large thermal energy demand and low quality of buildings could explain the massive use of firewood as a heating energy source (Red de Pobreza Energética, 2019) and the high PM2.5 concentrations in this city. On the other hand, the autonomous condition of its electricity generation and high service interruption could express the energy system's difficulties in adapting to its harsh environment. This antecedent could endanger economic development and energy transition trajectories as user untrust of the electrical system causes rejection of electric-based heating technologies.

These profiles translate into significantly diverse conditions of sensitivity and resiliency of the three cities to various possible disturbances that may arise in the future and endanger the provision of energy services. Also, a territorial assessment based on TEV concept can better inform PEDs policies in multiples aspects. First, it can help identify crucial sensitivity conditions to avoid policies that may inadvertently increase inequality and causes negative impacts on population wellbeing. For example, in the case of Arica and Los Andes the presence of children and elderly population and its vulnerability to heatwaves. requires specific planning to protect these groups. Second, it may contribute in describing preexisting gaps (technical, economical, informational, etc.) necessary to face before beginning a process of PED implementation, For example, the dependence on private off-grid self-generation in Coyhaique to satisfy the local energy demand need to be addressed in early stages of PED projects. Third, it may offer a baseline assessment of response and adaptive capacity (resilience) of the energy system and possible indicators of the positive impact of PED model, for example, to increase the learning capacity of a territory implementing better data acquisition on consumers, ideally on real-time, to improve decision making and efficiency of energy system management. This territorial scale assessment, hence, could enhance the integrated view of energy system present in PEDs literature by describing the preexisting vulnerability conditions.

Adopting a territorial, system-based outlook on energy poverty and energy transition is a necessary step to advance a more integral understanding of energy security, one which recognizes the contextual conditions that influence both energy uses and the processes of sociotechnical provision, and that acknowledges the potential impacts of diverse hazards in maintaining equitable access to energy for all. A deeper attention to the territorial and spatial conditions that determine the range of energy and technological alternatives available in a territory, and their vulnerability to hazards and stresses, is necessary to advance toward a just, sustainable and resilient energy transition to a decarbonized economy. Within cities, in particular, this may support a more contextualized and spatially-aware approach to the integration between urban planning and energy development in general, and to the deployment of Positive Energy Districs and PENs policies in particular.

To contribute to this challenge, the article proposed a framework based on the concept of TEV, defined as the propensity of a territory to not guarantee equitable access—in quantity and quality—to resilient energy services that allow the sustainable human and economic development of its population. In particular, the paper proposed and illustrated by a case study of three Chilean cities crucial sensitivity and resilience indicators to assess preexisting gaps in energy access and resilience of energy services within urban spaces.

Since most of the factors observed relate to the daily provision of energy services, it can also work as a proxy of present capabilities to satisfy energy needs. As such, it is a very useful complement to traditional energy poverty analysis, based on indicators of energy affordability, access, or quality (Urquiza et al., 2019). While energy poverty focuses on expressing energy deprivation, TEV describes the underlying systemic conditions which may explain or anticipate such deprivation.

In terms of a just transition to sustainable cities based on PED guidelines, the contribution of our proposed approach is two-fold: first, in visualizing structural inequalities relating to energy deprivation, it contributes to making a stronger case for the need for a deep transformation of the energy regime: a transformation motivated not only by the need to decarbonize the energy matrix but also by the imperative of ensuring access to affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy for all, as implied in sustainable development goals (United Nations, 2015). Second, it pushes to reflect both on the possible dangers which may befall the transition effort—potentially hampering its results—and upon the risk that the transition itself can have on energy deprivation: as shown by previous research (Reyes et al., 2015; Bouzarovski and Tirado Herrero, 2017b; Frantál and Nováková, 2019; Urquiza et al., 2019; van der Wiel et al., 2019; O'Sullivan et al., 2020). If not properly planned, transitions may end up worsening—instead of alleviate—existing conditions of inequality, particularly among the most sensitive groups and sectors, and/or in territories showing the lower resiliency to change.

Moreover, because it takes the territory as its fundamental unit of analysis, the framework can provide an outlook of the differential distribution of energy deprivation across different territories. Therefore, it relates both to strands of literature that have attempted to identify climate and geographical drivers of energy poverty (Katsoulakos and Kaliampakos, 2016; Besagni and Borgarello, 2019; Ioannidis et al., 2019) and those striving to spatialize energy deprivation (Bouzarovski and Simcock, 2017; Bouzarovski et al., 2017; Robinson et al., 2019). Hence, it offers a strong analytical platform to deepen our understanding of different manifestations of energy deprivation that may occur outside the household boundary (Wolf et al., 2016; Mattioli et al., 2019). Along these lines, it is our contention that the TEV approach offers a powerful and flexible platform to advance toward a better understanding of forms of energy deprivation occurring outside the household (Mattioli et al., 2019). Future studies may extend the work presented in this paper by complementing the framework with indicators explicitly tackling technological, economical, or socio-cultural barriers to a full and equitable access to high-quality energy services within educational, health-related, and other social and productive uses, as suggested by Urquiza and Billi (2020). Likewise, an interesting future avenue of research may involve combining traditional energy poverty analysis and the TEV framework, exploiting the two approaches' complementarity while contrasting the descriptions of the energy deprivation they provide.

Before concluding, a warning must be raised about information requirements: the TEV approach is way more demanding in terms of data concerning traditional energy poverty indicators. We do not consider this a drawback, however. While in our case studies, we could only apply a fraction of the variables identified in our framework, the results were highly informative concerning differential patterns of sensitivity and resilience across the examined cities. On the other hand, outlining an ambitious yet operable analytical framework may signal the need to develop more data to provide a more complete picture on territorial energy processes and their impacts on energy deprivation, a requirement already pointed out by existing literature on energy poverty spatialization (Bouzarovski et al., 2017).

Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found here: Ministerio del Medio Ambiente (2020). Proyecto Atlas Riesgos Climáticos (ARClim). https://arclim.mma.gob.cl Ministerio de Desarrollo Social (2015). Encuesta de Caracterización Socioeconómica (CASEN). http://observatorio.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/ Ministerio de Desarrollo Social (2017). Encuesta de Caracterización Socioeconómica Nacional (CASEN). http://observatorio.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/ Comisión Nacional de Energía (2020). Energía Abierta. http://energiaabierta.cl/ Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (2018). Censo de Población y Vivienda 2017. https://www.ine.cl/estadisticas/sociales/censos-de-poblacion-y-vivienda.

RC, CA, MB, and AU: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing—original draft, supervision, and funding acquisition. MF: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, and writing—original draft. NA and JN: methodology, investigation, and writing—review and editing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.