TABLE III. Criteria for non-institutional analysis. Dimension Criterion Indicator Valuation Environmental 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Signatory or not of the Kyoto Protocol Existence of environment ministry Consideration of percentage of energy coming from renewable sources CO2 emissions arising from the consumption of energy per capita Consideration of the percentage of the installed capacity of renewable sources Consideration of the existence of energy trade with other countries Existence of an energy regulatory body in the country Existence of one or more governing laws for the energy system Existence of a mention on energy plan in the constitution Consideration of participation in international associations Consideration of HDI Consideration of the percentage of homes / families / people without access to electricity Consideration of the rate of unemployment in the country Consideration of participation in the WTO Consideration of the percentage of urbanization in the country Consideration of GDP per capita in the country Consideration of external debt Consideration of energy per capita production Existence of a ministry dedicated to research and development (or other ministries, which combined exercise this function) Consideration of inflation rate 0 or 2 0 or 2 0 to 2 0 to 2 0 to 2 0 to 2 0 or 2 0 or 2 0 to 2 0 to 2 0 to 2 0 to 2 Policy Social TechnicalEconomic 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 0 to 2 0 or 2 0 to 2 0 to 2 0 to 2 0 to 2 0 or 2 0 to 2 Source: Author elaboration. analysis are considered within the capability of the country to adopt or take on this kind of development, represented by the results of non-institutional analysis. Therefore, what characterizes the potential of using planning based on sustainable development is the consistency of the country's infrastructure to accommodate such planning, in conjunction with the goals and scope of the preferred plan itself. Preferred Energy Plans Status Environmental Dimension Germany (A) 10 Australia (A) Paraguay (C) 8 Mozambique (C) 6 Mexico (C) 2 United States (A) 4 Fig. 1 shows the values obtained in the environmental dimension assessment, according to institutional and non-institutional criteria. The diversity of values obtained in institutional criterion of countries corresponds to preferred plans with different environmental approaches. It is noteworthy that the only document published by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan was the summary of the energy plan; as a result the institutional analysis was superficial. In the MARCH 2015 non-institutional analysis, values were quite similar, except for Mozambique and Paraguay. It is observed in the diagram that there are great variations in the analysis of significance in institutional criterion for groups B and C. Israel (A) 0 Japan (A) Ecuador (C) Argentina (B) Bolivia (C) Venezuela (B) South Korea (B) Spain (B) Institutional Non Institutional Figure 1. Environmental analysis (global). ∕ IEEE TEchnology and SocIETy MagazInE 35