IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2015 - 34

characteristics, energy resources to be applied are
listed, screened, and selected. Full Cost Accounting is
adopted by IRP, as a tool to differentiate resources.
In the IRP, the energy resources from both the
demand-side and supply-side expand the concept of
resources implementation. The supply, unlike in traditional planning, is no longer just a follower of the
demand curve in this context. With the resources listed
and ranked, predictions for demand (essential for defining the energy resources to fulfill it) are made clear
through scenarios generated from the trends in the context of socioeconomic development.

Energy Planning Analysis Methodology
Based on IRP
The analysis of preferred plans should be conducted
using two approaches: institutional or non-institutional..
The institutional analysis studies and evaluates the
adherence of an institutional energy plan of the electricity sector in a given country to the methodological
criteria underpinning the integrated energy resources
planning (IRP). The non-institutional analysis investigates the degree to which a country makes sustainable
development a goal, and if it is prepared for the real
applicability of the IRP with more or less difficulty.
Data acquisition for analysis occurs in a different way
in these analytical approaches. Institutional analysis
follows a hierarchy of research with priority to official
sources, as conveyed by the ministries of mines and
energy, or equivalent. The second position in the hierarchy is of academic and / or research of renowned
authorities. Besides the hierarchy of sources, there is an
established hierarchy of information on the quality of
the documentation available. The first position belongs
to the electricity sector's own energy plans. The second
position belongs to general energy development plans
of a nation. The next position is occupied by operational plans (short-term plans). Finally, the next position
belongs to development guidelines and energy laws. For
non-institutional analysis the main sources used were
international bodies, in addition to information provided
by governments when necessary.
Therefore, as a methodological and procedural exercise, there are comparisons to check the status of energy
planning towards sustainable development, and and to
check realistic conditions of applicability of the IRP in a
country plan. In this sense, it is assumed as an ideal that
the values that the institution analyzes are substantially
complementary to the values of non-institutional analysis.
This is to demonstrate that the energy plan of the country
has focused on the areas presenting the greatest deficiencies in the direction of clean development.
For this study, fourteen countries were selected for
the directed sample: Germany, Argentina, Australia,

TABLE II. Guidelines for institutional criteria
valuation.
Consideration of preferred plans

Valuation

Does not consider in the preparation
of preferred plan

0.0

Discusses the subject in the preferred plan

0.5

Recommends specific study on
the preferred plan

1.0

Analyzes for the preferred plan in question

1.5

Considers in preparing the preferred plan

2.0

Source: [1].

Bolivia, South Korea, Ecuador, Spain, the United States,
Israel, Japan, Mexico, Mozambique, Paraguay and Venezuela. For the institutional analysis, rating data was
gathered from criteria identified in the IRP as indicated
in Table I. Table II shows the guidelines for rating criteria.
For non-institutional analysis, data are evaluated with
the indicators from Table III. For valuation purposes,
the country that had the best performance for a given
criterion receives the numerical rating 2, and the others receive a corresponding rating. In this methodology,
analysis of preferred plans of the energy sector used
countries sorted into three groups, A, B and C. The
criterion for segregation of the groups is the decreasing order of GDP per capita. The groups are therefore
defined as: Group A: Australia, United States, Japan,
Germany and Israel; Group B: Spain, South Korea, Venezuela and Argentina; Group C: Mexico, Ecuador, Paraguay, Bolivia and Mozambique.
The GDP per capita is pondered because it is a relative parameter that reflects the economic situation of
the countries more accurately than the GDP by itself.
Additionally, the lack of economic flexibility (reflected
by a low GDP per capita) is a factor that practically
precludes a correctly integrated plan of energy resources. This is true, given that such planning, in general,
demands high initial investment in all methodological
dimensions of an integrated plan, both in mitigation
of environmental and social damages, and for technological investment, etc. Once discrimination in groups
is made, a complete analytical and evaluative basis is
derived from the scientific-technical report developed
[13], which contains the analysis of all the countries
considered in this study. With these values, the graphical results of these institutional analyses are presented.
Subsequently, the same process is performed for each
group and the comparison between them is made.
Implementing a plan based on sustainable development
becomes more feasible when the values of institutional

IEEE TEchnology and SocIETy MagazInE

∕

MARCH 2015

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2015