Trajectories for energy transition in the countries of the European Union over the period 2000-2015 : a multidimensional approach

Transition towards low-carbon energy sources is a dominant paradigm of public energy policies today. This article conducts an inventory of energy transition in the European Union over the period 2000-2015. Multidimensional data analysis methods are employed in order to develop temporal and spatial typologies of the energy transition with respect to the three targets defined by the European Climate Energy Package. Results show evidence of a gradual transition over three sub-periods towards a more environmentally conscious economy: reducing greenhouse gas emissions, developing renewable energy sources and improving energy efficiency. Four profiles of energy transition are proposed. The evolutionary analyses of the 28 EU countries over the sub-periods shows strong stability in country trajectories, with a few exceptions. The interpretation of the energy transition classes is then enriched by reference to wide range of variables related to five themes, namely energy systems; environmental characteristics; economic performance; political characteristics; and demographic, climatic and geographic characteristics. These themes contribute to the identification of barriers as well as levers in the energy transition. Finally, our results highlight the backwardness of the great Western European countries in achieving the goals assigned to them.


Introduction
Since the 1990s, environmental issues have become a major concern for policy makers.Faced with the threat of global warning, it has been seen as essential to reduce energy consumption, limit the use of fossil fuels, and promote the development of low-carbon energies.This requires a radical technological transformation of the global energy system, and the rapid establishment of policies to encourage concerted and coordinated efforts to integrate global ecological concerns into local and national policies.
At the Paris Climate Conference (COP21) in December 2015, 195 countries adopted the world's first ever universal and legally binding climate agreement.The agreement sets a longterm goal of keeping global average temperature rise below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.The European Union, for its part, has built an ambitious framework.In 1986, a resolution of the European Council set a general objective of progressive substitution of fossil fuels by renewable energies.This commitment was formalized in 2001 by a directive which endorsed a target of 12% renewable energy (RE) in energy consumption for 2010.The European Union has since become the first region in the world to have committed to much more ambitious goals: the adoption of the Climate Energy Package at the European Council of 12 December 2008 set out an action plan to enable the EU to achieve three objectives for the year 2020: (i) reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 20% compared to 1990 levels; (ii) increase the share of renewable energy to 20%, and (iii) reduce energy consumption by 20% by 2020 compared to projections.This latter objective is well known as the 20% energy efficiency target. 1 This plan was reinforced in 2014 with the adoption of the EU 2030 Framework for Climate and Energy Policies, which sets even more ambitious targets, namely: (i) a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 40%, (ii) an increase in EU energy from renewable sources to 27%, and (iii) an indicative target of 27% energy efficiency.These objectives are binding at the European level. 2   Beyond these three climate targets, the EU's energy policy has three main objectives jointly intended to reconcile sustainability, security of supply and competitiveness.The EU Energy Strategy aims to ensure a reliable energy supply for EU countries by (i) increasing EU energy security, (ii) reducing dependence on energy imports, and (iii) contributing to achieving a European Energy Union.New technologies and energy efficiency measures should create new industrial sectors, boost jobs, foster growth and make Europe more competitive.Europe's ambition is to be the worldwide leader in developing the technologies required to tackle climate change.
Achievement of the three climate targets for the year 2020 requires significant additional investment in low-carbon technologies, significant policy interventions, deep emissions reductions in the electricity sector, and stable long-term and economically efficient price signals to enable rapid adoption of low carbon technologies.It also implies governance that ensures that each Member State of the European Union takes its fair share in the energy transition (ET) process in order to collectively achieve the European objectives.TORVANGER and MEADOWCROFT (2011), SHRIMALI and KNIEFEL (2011) and AKLIN and URPELAINEN (2013) emphasise the importance of public policy orientation in supporting the energy transition.Fossil fuels continue to dominate the energy balance sheets largely because of a market failure that neglects the cost of their negative externalities (UNRUH 2000).Due to centuries of industrial development, fossil fuels have enormous structural advantages, making them more mature than sustainable alternatives such as solar energy and wind energy.These handicaps are further worsened by subsidies for fossil fuels (OECD 2015).ACKET and VAILLANT (2011) point out that the development of RE requires the introduction of incentives to offset much higher costs than "traditional" energies, particularly nuclear energy.Therefore, government action is necessary to accompany the trajectories of the energy transition (UNRUH 2002, LOORBACH 2010).The EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) was introduced in 2005 with the aim of addressing market failures by creating a market for GHG emission allowances, hence setting a price for carbon emissions reflecting the negative externalities associated with fossil-fuel-based electricity generation.To support the deployment of RE, a mix of different policy instruments was implemented by each member state, concerning regulatory policies, fiscal incentives as well as public financing.In the early 2000s most European Union countries set up a guaranteed purchase price mechanism aimed at promoting the development of renewable energy.Electricity of renewable origin benefits from a guaranteed remunerative price, set by the public authorities, and a purchase obligation under a long-term contract with the incumbent operator (HANSEN and PERCEBOIS 2017).
The EU is on track to meet its 2020 climate targets.One objective was already achieved in 2015: GHG emissions in the EU-28 were down by 23.7% compared with 1990 levels.The share of renewable energy in gross final energy consumption rose from around 8% in 2000 to 13% in 2010 to over 16.5% in 2015.In 2015, primary energy consumption in the EU was 3.3% off the efficiency target, while final energy consumption reached the efficiency target of 1,086 Mtoe.However, in 2016 consumption further increased beyond 2% of the target.Over the years, the distance from the energy consumption target has fluctuated greatly (EUROSTAT 2018).But these results hide significant disparities between countries.Although all countries in the European Union face the same energy and environmental challenges, the performances vary greatly from one country to another.The energy balance sheets of each EU Member State depend to a large extent on their geographical location, energy policy, the structure of the energy system, the availability of energy resources for primary energy production, and the structure and development of the economy.Taking into account national characteristics is therefore essential in order to understand the progress made and to achieve the objectives set by the EU for 2020 and 2030.
The purpose of this article is fourfold.First, we consider the dynamics of the energy transition pursued by the European Union over the period 2000-2015 according to the three energy transition target variables defined by the 2020 Climate Energy Package.Second, we establish a typology of the 28 EU member countries with regard to the three target variables, focusing on the countries' trajectories over the period 2000-2015.Third, we consider a wide range of thematic variables related to five national characteristics: energy systems; economic performance; environment; political variables; and demography, climate and geography.These variables allow us to consolidate and enrich the typology of the energy transition of the EU-28 countries.In addition, they should make it possible to identify the strengths and weaknesses of Member States in the fight against global warming.Fourth, to assess countries' progress in achieving their national goals, we also consider variables related to the achievement of national goals.Our concern is then to determine if the most virtuous countries with regard to the three components of the energy transition are also those which are making the greatest efforts to reach their objectives.
Several questions motivate this research: (i) understanding the mechanisms of the energy transition; (ii) comparing progress in achieving energy transition targets across EU countries; (iii) explaining national differences; (iv) identifying the levers and obstacles to the energy transition; and (v) evaluating the efficiency of public policies in relation to the objectives set.
The approach adopted rests on a combined use of multidimensional evolutionary data analyses that take into account the characteristics of the countries in terms of three variables related to the 2020 Climate Energy Package targets.According to the similarity of these three variables, we establish a classification of 28 EU countries over the period 2000-2015.
The analysis of energy transition has produced an extensive literature, which has largely focused identifying the determinants of greenhouse gas emissions, 3 the drivers of the deployment of renewable energies, 4 or energy efficiency gains. 5To our knowledge, no study to date has simultaneously considered the three targets of the energy transition as applied to all EU countries.The originality of the contribution lies both in the diversity of the variables considered and in the multidimensional data analysis methods used.
The paper is organized as follows.Section 2 briefly reviews the literature.The data and methodology are described in Section 3. Section 4 presents our main results and related comments, while Section 5 summarizes our findings and provides policy recommendations.

Literature Review
The energy transition depends on a set of national characteristics that can be grouped into five themes: energy systems; economic performance; environment; political variables; and demography, climate and geography.We examine the economic literature relating to these five themes. 3PADILLA and SERRANO 2006, SAIKKU and SOIMAKALLIO 2008, COONDOO and DINDA 2008, GUAN  et al. 2008, JAUNKY 2011, GOVINDARAJU and TANG 2013, AJANOVIC and HAAS 2017.  4 BIRD et al. 2005, MENZ and VACHON 2006, SADORSKY 2009a, 2009b, MARQUES et al. 2010, CADORET  and PADOVANO 2016, PACESILA et al. 2016, APERGIS and PAYNE 2011, APERGIS and DANULETIU  2014.  BROIN et al. 2013, BROIN et al. 2015, KNOOP and LECHTENBÖHMER 2017.Member States differ greatly in terms of energy mix, level of GHG emissions and energy efficiency.National energy balances differ from one country to another because of the initial situation of the different countries in terms of energy production, which in turn results from previous political choices and national resources.Some member countries, for example, rely heavily on fossil fuels.Such differences affect the choices they have made in their energy and climate policies and the success of these policies towards the energy transition.

Specificities of national energy systems
In 2015, nuclear energy had the highest share in primary energy production in the EU-28 (28.9%), followed by renewable energies (26.7%), solid fuels (18.9%), gas (14%), petroleum products (9.8%) and non-renewable wastes (1.7%); yet fossil fuels still supplied around 72.6% of the EU-28's energy consumption, of which 34.4% in oil products, 22% in natural gas and 16.1% in solid fossil fuels.The share of nuclear in energy consumption was 13.6% and renewable energy accounted for 13%.We observe a strong trend since the early 2000s, with a decline in the share of solid fuels and an increase in renewable energy and natural gas.
Yet the EU still relies heavily on energy imports from non-EU countries, which provided 54.1% of all energy consumed in 2015.The main supplier of energy to the EU in 2015 was Russia.It supplied 37.3% of total gas imports, 32.9% of imports of petroleum products and 29.1% of solid fuel imports.The EU has made substantial progress towards its energy efficiency objective.All but two Member States reduced primary energy consumption compared to 2005 by values ranging from 3.3% to 27.3%.In 2015, the EU consumed 10.7% less primary energy than in 2005.All the countries have improved their primary energy intensity in terms of GDP; this denotes a real effort in improving their efficiency notwithstanding the different structures of production.The eastern countries have recorded the greatest rates of decrease, but their energy intensities remain above those of other countries.With respect to primary energy consumption, the EU must achieve a further reduction of 3.1% over the five years between 2015 to 2020 to achieve the target of improving energy efficiency by 20% (EUROSTAT, Europe 2020 indicators: climate and energy).
The share of solid fossil fuels is above the EU-28 average in most eastern European countries (Estonia 61%, Poland 50.4%, Czech Republic 37.93%, Bulgaria 34.1%, Slovakia 20.6%, Romania 17.9%, Slovenia 16.2%) as well as in Greece (23.7%) and Germany (25%).In Malta, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Greece petroleum products account for more than half of domestic consumption, with shares accounting for 97%, 92%, 71.2% and 52.8% respectively.Natural gas has a share of over 30% in the Netherlands (36.7%),Italy (36.4%),United Kingdom (32.5%) and Hungary (31.1%).Nuclear power is part of the domestic energy mix in 14 EU Member States, France being in first place with nuclear power accounting for around 43.6% in 2015, followed by Sweden (30.6%),Slovakia (24.4%),Slovenia (22.2%) and Bulgaria (20.5%).The most successful countries in terms of the development of RE are Sweden, Latvia, Finland and Austria, where RE covers more than 30% of the domestic energy consumption (40.2%, 36.4%, 32.9% and 30% respectively).
Member States differ greatly in the structure of their energy systems, with such differences affecting the choices they have made in their energy and climate policies, and the success of these policies as regards the energy transition.

Environmental characteristics
Environmental variables relate in particular to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, environmental degradation measures and environmental protection expenditures.Many studies (eg SADORSKY 2009a, VAN RUIJVEN and VAN VUUEN 2009) suggest that environmental concerns encourage increased use of renewable energy.MARQUES et al. (2010) showed that the level of CO2 emissions is a determining factor in the deployment of renewable energy in 24 European countries over the period 1990-2006.Regional differences in the quality of the environment are likely to lead to a mixed development of renewable energy.We may assume that a high level of GHG emissions in a country is likely to stimulate greater efforts to promote renewable energy.
In 2015, EU greenhouse gas emissions were down by 22.1% compared with 1990 levels, as noted above.Some countries have made significant efforts to reduce their GHG emissions, recording a reduction of at least -25% in ten years (Luxembourg, UK, Denmark, Malta, Italy, Spain and Sweden).Yet in 2015 there still remains a notable difference between the worst performing, i.e.Luxembourg, and the best performing, i.e.Sweden: Luxembourg in fact emitted 3.6 times more GHG per inhabitant.Industrial structure may also explain some of the high GHG emissions figures among the less developed countries of the eastern bloc, like Bulgaria, Estonia or the Czech Republic.Meanwhile, a low level of development explains the low level of GHG per inhabitant in countries like Romania or Croatia, while in more developed countries the contribution of nuclear power to electricity production has helped to reduce their GHG emissions (especially France, but also Belgium, Sweden, Finland, United Kingdom and Germany).Less developed countries like Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary have also developed their nuclear energy capacity, with the Czech Republic in particular having recently increased its share.To the contrary, under the pressure from EU, at the end of 2009 Lithuania closed its last reactor, which was producing around 75% of its electricity.

Economic performance (characteristics and sectorial specialisation)
The relationship between economic growth and environment can be understood via two complementary approaches.The first is an extension of KUZNETS's work (1955) as developed by GROSSMAN and KRUEGER (1991).It assumes that pollutant emissions increase with growth and then decrease, forming an inverted "U"-shaped relationship.The second approach is based on an augmented SOLOW model where exogenous technological progress in both goods production and energy abatement leads to continual growth with rising environmental quality (BROCK and TAYLOR 2004).
An abundant literature (SADORSKY 2009b, MARQUES et al. 2010, MARQUES and FUINHAS 2011, APERGIS and PAYNE 2011, APERGIS and DANULETIU 2014) has established a positive link between economic growth and the use of renewable energy.SADORSKY's (2009b) study of the G7 countries highlights a positive relationship between renewable energy consumption and economic growth, as well as two-way causality.In the long term, real GDP per capita growth appears to be a major determinant of RE consumption.APERGIS and DANUTELIU (2014) examine the relationship between renewable energy consumption and economic growth for 80 countries.Their results indicate that there is a longterm positive relationship between RE consumption and real GDP and confirm that RE consumption promotes economic growth which in turn stimulates the use of RE sources.Assuming that environmental quality is a normal good, the demand for environmental policies should increase with income.A higher income level means greater potential to bear high regulatory costs (which can result in both higher prices and higher taxes) and also more resources available to implement and promote sustainable environmental alternatives (and greater use of renewable energy).According to ZUINDEAU (2005), reaching a certain threshold of development engages a cycle of "virtuous growth".Several arguments support this "optimistic" vision of growth: (i) economic development and its corollary the expansion of the tertiary sector reduce environmental impact, (ii) the increase of the level of education and standard of living can lead to strong sensitivity to environmental concerns and changes in consumer behaviour; and finally (iii) technical innovation and progress contribute actively to the development of clean-up techniques and the implementation of clean technologies.
We therefore assume that national disparities in terms of economic performance and sectoral specialization (STERLACCHINI 2006, BEUGELSDIJK et al. 2017) can induce differentiated energy mixes and thus a contrasting development of renewable energy.

Political characteristics
Both theoretical and empirical analyses of political economy have shown that the quality of governance and political ideology play a key role in energy and environmental policy decisions.
Corruption is usually considered as a standard measure of governance quality, and it reduces the efficiency of implementation of environmental regulations.LOPEZ and MIRA (2000) point out that for any level of income, the pollution levels corresponding to corrupt behaviour are always above the socially optimal level.Using data on 26 European countries over the period 2004-2011, CADORET and PADOVANO (2016) underline that quality of governance has a positive effect on the deployment of renewable energy.FREDRIKSSON and SVENSSON (2003) developed a theory of environmental policy formation, considering both the degree of corruption and political stability.They predict that corruption reduces the stringency of environmental regulations; however, political instability should offset this effect as it reduces the effectiveness of corrupt practices.Using a cross-sectional analysis on 63 countries for the year 1990, they provided evidence which supported the predictions of their model.BISWAS et al. (2012) established a link between corruption, the shadow economy and pollution.Their theoretical model predicts that controlling the level of corruption can limit the effect of the shadow economy on pollution.Some authors view lobbying activities as a form of corruption.The lobbying pressure for less stringent regulation depends on the size of the interest group or the economic sector concerned.According to POTTERS and SLOOF (1996), the larger the lobby, the greater its success.To measure the power of the lobby, an indicator of the sector's contribution to the total value added or total employment is usually used.Using a panel data set on 11 sectors in 12 OECD countries over the period 1982-1996, FREDRIKSSON et al. (2004) ) provide evidence than lobbying activities affect energy policy.KNITTEL (2006) finds a link between conventional electricity market regulation and industrial interests: the stronger the interest group, the greater the likelihood of a state adopting regulation favourable to this group.MARQUES et al. (2010) also point out that the hydrocarbon industry lobby is a barrier to the deployment of renewable energy.CADORET and PADOVANO (2016) find that lobbying by the manufacturing industry delays the deployment of renewable energy.
The literature points out the influence of political ideology on environmental policy decisions, drawing attention in particular to government ideology, the cohesion of the government majority and the institutional framework in which the government operates (CADORET and PADOVANO 2016).Left-wing governments are generally seen as more favourable to market regulation and ought to be more inclined to enforce strict environmental regulations.HUANG et al. (2007) show that Republican party dominance decreases the likelihood of support for renewable energy sources at state level.CADORET and PADOVANO (2016) observe that in general left-wing parties favour the use of renewable energy.

Demographic, climatic and geographical characteristics
Demographic variables such as population, population density, urbanization, are the most commonly used in assessing energy consumption.Articles aimed at measuring the impact of urbanization on energy consumption and/or greenhouse gas emissions have increased in number in recent years.Most studies agree that energy consumption and air pollution increase with urbanization (COLE and NEUMAYER 2004, HOSSEIN 2011, MARTINEZ-ZARZOSO and MARUOTTI 2011, ARVIN et al. 2015).SALIM and SHAFIEI (2014) analysed the impact of urbanization on the consumption of renewable and non-renewable energy in OECD countries over the period 1980-2011.Their results show that urbanization contributes to the total growth of energy consumption and in particular to the growth of non-renewable energy consumption.They also found a significantly negative relationship between population density and non-renewable energy consumption.On the other hand, no significant relationship could be established between urbanization and the use of renewable energy.YANG et al. (2016) show that urbanization has a positive effect on the growth of RE consumption in China.YANG et al. (2016) highlight the effect of urbanization and the effect of population on the growth of renewable energy consumption in China.However, they point out that the contribution of urbanization differs according to the growth stages of renewable energy consumption, with urbanization contributing more to the growth of total energy consumption than to growth in consumption of renewable energy.
Finally, it can be conjectured that energy solutions will differ between urban and rural areas.For example, wind farms and photovoltaic parks will emerge in rural areas.CAMAGNI and CAPELLO (2013) emphasize that long-term territorial development is tightly conditioned by territorial assets.Appealing to the concept of territorial capital (OECD 2001), which encompasses a wide variety of territorial assets (both tangible and intangible, and of a private, public or mixed nature), they propose that growth strategies will be regionally differentiated.It is important to understand that nations have their own territorial capital, and that this territorial capital may influence choices regarding energy transition.There is a link between territorial strategies and territorial capital, and this link illuminates how the resources of the territory are valued and how are they transformed into strategic development factors.We postulate that national natural endowments, but also the territorial strategy, can condition the development of renewable energies as well as the choice of sectors for development.Consumption and energy production are closely linked to climatic and geographical variables.In particular, electricity production is concentrated in certain territories: hydropower is developed in mountainous regions with water reserves, nuclear power also requires significant water resources, while wind turbines should be constructed where it is windy, and photovoltaics where it is sunny.

Data and preliminary analyses
In this section we describe the data and present the summary statistics.Our proposal aims to establish the trajectories of the EU and its 28 countries with respect to the three energy transition objectives defined by the 2020 energy-climate package.We consider three comparable variables across countries, namely the Greenhouse Gas Emissions per capita measured in tons of CO2 equivalent (GHGE), Primary Energy Intensity measured in tons of oil equivalent per thousand euros of GDP at 2010 market prices (PEI), and the Share of Renewable Energy Consumption as percentage of total final energy consumption (SREC).These three variables will hereafter be called the three components of the energy transition (ET).We use annual data extracted from EUROSTAT databases over the period 2000-2015.

Data related to the EU-28
Figure 1 shows the evolution of the three ET components of the EU over the period 2000-2015.There is indeed a quasi-linear evolution of the three components: SREC is increasing, while PEI and per capita GHGE are decreasing.

Figure 1: Evolution of the three ET components of the EU-28
Table 1 summarizes the basic statistics of the three components of the energy transition.The coefficients of variation shown in Table 1 illustrate the homogeneity of distribution of the energy transition components and illustrate the relative magnitudes of their disparities.The greatest disparity is observed in the SREC.

Data related to the 28 countries of the EU
To get an overview of the differences between the 28 EU countries, in Table 2 we present some summary descriptive statistics computed from the national averages of the three components of the ET over the period 2000-2015.We observe strong variability in the variables related to the ET, revealing a strong heterogeneity between the 28 EU countries.The GHGE ranges from 5.369 tons of CO2 equivalent per capita in Latvia to 26.162 tons of CO2 equivalent per capita in Luxembourg.The PEI peaks at 0.541 tons of oil equivalent per thousand euros of GDP at 2010 market prices in Bulgaria against only 0.079 in Denmark.The SREC varies from 1.382% of the final consumption in Malta to 43.42% in Sweden.What is more, these variables also exhibit relatively high coefficients of variation, confirming the heterogeneity in ET performance across the 28 EU member countries.This suggests that there are various processes involved in implementing the energy transition in Europe.
We note that the spatial disparities between the 28 countries are much greater than the temporal disparities recorded over the period 2000-2015 for the three components of the ET.
In order to better describe the typologie of the 28 EU countries, we use a wide set of thematic variables relevant to characterizing the context of the ET in the different countries.These variables promise to provide additional information which will help us to consolidate and enrich the interpretation of the classes of countries, so have been positioned as supplementary variables in the multidimensional analysis.They do not affect the calculations based upon the three active variables (the three components of the ET): they are not used to determine the principal component factors, but are positioned a posteriori in order to assess their degree of similarity with the active variables.We consider five categories of variables related to specific national characteristics: energy systems; economic performance; environment; political variables; and demography, climate and geography.
Many variables have been collected relating to energy system, so as to take into account national characteristics in terms of energy dependence, energy efficiency and energy balance sheets.Most of the data were expressed as a percentage of GDP or per capita, so as to be directly comparable across the 28 member countries.The others are expressed as percentages.We have considered primary and final energy consumption per capita for different energy sources, shares of different energy sources in electricity production, and we have broken down renewable energies according to the different renewable energy sources.We also took into account imports, exports and exchanges balances of electricity.
The second category gathers variables pertinent to the theme of environment: CO2, methane and nitrous oxide emissions relative to various fuel consumptions, and from different sectors and branches of activity.We also considered some variables relative to patents in ecoinnovation or employed in the circular economy.These indicators illustrate a country's interest in environmental concerns.
The third category concerns economic variables relating to both the performance of countries and their economic structure.The variables for economic performance are GDP and income per capita, level of unemployment, labour force participation, gross capital formation, education, and R&D expenditures; as well as the rate of household equipment in automobiles, the road freight density.Sectoral specialization is accounted for in terms of both employment and GDP.
The fourth domain encompasses the political variables that can influence the ET.The power of lobbying is proxied by variables representing the endowment of natural resources and the share of energy-intensive industrial sectors in the GDP.We also look at taxes on energy and the environment, and gas and electricity prices in both domestic and industrial sectors.
Institutional variables representative of governance were collected, including perception of corruption, corruption control, political stability and absence of violence/terrorism, government effectiveness, and rule of law; these are employed as representative variables of the political system.And we also add variables directly measuring the political system (more or less democratic or presidential, more or less right or left) and two variables representing prices of natural gas and electricity for households.
The fifth theme, demography, climate and geography, incorporates population density, shares of rural areas, shares of agricultural territories, forest lands, resources in renewable water, cereal productivity, and organic crops, but also the presence of a shore, the number of hours of sunshine, and climate types.
These variables, extracted from various data sources, are described in Table A1 in appendix.

Empirical results
We first present a temporal analysis of the ET of the EU over the period 2000-2015, and then propose a typology of the 28 member countries in relation to the three components of the ET.The additional variables described in the previous subsection will be used to enrich the description of the homogenous classes of EU countries.

Trajectory of the EU-28 energy transition
To analyse the energy transition development over the period 2000-2015, we study the annual evolution of the ET components (GHGE, PEI and SREC) of the EU.In this analysis, years play the role of "individuals" and annual components the role of "variables".
A methodological sequence of two data analysis methods (LEBART et al. 2000, SAPORTA 2006, TUFFERY 2007) was used to group the sixteen years into homogeneous classes according to the ET components of the EU.More precisely, Hierarchical Ascendant Clustering (HAC) was used on the significant factors of the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of annual components of the ET development.This methodological linking of a factorial analysis and clustering method constitutes an instrument for statistical observation and structural analysis of multidimensional data.The first factorial axis, which summarizes almost all the information (98.14%), opposes the early period 2000-2006, characterized by high PEI and GHGE, with the later period 2011-2015, characterized by a high SREC.This axis is interpreted as a time factor: indeed, there is a quasi-linear time evolution of the years along the first axis.This means that the three components of ET, which are highly correlated with this axis, vary linearly with respect to time.The second representation of Figure 2 shows the grouping of the closest years according to the first component: these groups are materialized by geometric shapes.Years with the same shape have common energy transition characteristics.

Figure 3: Hierarchical tree of the temporal evolution according to the EU energy transition
The dendrogram in Figure 3 represents the hierarchical tree of the years of the EU energy transition obtained by using an HAC with the Ward criterion. 6It clearly distinguishes three homogeneous sub-periods.Table 3 summarizes the main results and profiles of the EU energy transition over the three sub-periods selected from the cut in the three classes of the hierarchical tree.The second class, which groups together the four succeeding years of the middle period, 2007-2010, is considered as a homogeneous class, which means that none of the three ET components on this sub-period differs significantly from the average of these components over the overall period.It can be considered as an adaptation phase, concomitant with the adoption of the climate energy package in 2008.
The ET characteristics of the last class, constituted by the last five years of the period, are opposed to those of the first class.Its profile corresponds to the anti-profile of the first class, and vice versa.This third class is characterised by a high share of RE in final consumption, lower energy intensity and lower GHG emissions per capita.

Energy transition of the 28 EU member countries
To better analyse and understand the evolution of the development of the ET of the 28 EU countries, we carried out an evolutionary data analysis on the three sub-periods.
The approach adopted relies on a combined use of exploratory methods of evolutionary data analysis that take into account the characteristics of the countries in terms of GHGE, PEI and SREC, as well as their evolution over each sub-period.According to the similarity of these three components, we can establish a typology of the 28 EU countries.The usual analyses of annual data do not allow for a global analysis of the countries and their characteristics because these analyses are carried out separately (year by year) and do not take into account the possibility of their having a common structure across time.The total evolution of the countries is thus studied by a Multiple Factor Analysis (MFA), based on a weighted analysis of the principal components of all the data.The MFA (DAZY and LE BARZIC 1996, ESCOFIER and PAGES 1985, 1998) allows the simultaneous exploration of several multidimensional data tables, and it applies more particularly to time series data.This evolutionary analysis is especially designed to study individuals (i.e.countries) characterized by a number of groups of the same variable (i.e. the components) measured at each different moment in time.The MFA highlights the common structure of a set of groups of ET components observed for the same 28 countries.The primary interest of this method is that it enables us to carry out a factor analysis in which the influence of the different groups of ET components is a priori equilibrated.This balance is necessary because the groups of variables always differ according to the structure of the variables, namely by their interrelationships.It provides us with representations of countries and ET components that can be interpreted according to the usual PCA.An HAC was then used on the significant factors of the MFA in order to characterize homogeneous classes of countries relative to the evolution of the three ET components.
In order to describe a posteriori the country classes according to the ET characterized by the active variables (GHGE, PEI and SREC), we consider a wide range of the illustrative variables as presented in the previous section (3.2), to better understand the characteristics of countries in terms of ET.These variables are likely to provide additional information to consolidate and enrich the internal interpretation given by the characterization of country classes by the components of the ET.They are positioned and projected as additional variables in the multivariate analysis of evolutionary data of active variables.They do not in any way influence the determination of classes, but may possibly provide an external interpretation of these classes.We consider five thematic grouping variables, namely energy systems; economic performance; environment; political variables; and demography, climate and geography.
As an illustration, in each periodic analysis we have also projected a posteriori the EU-28, representing the evolutionary components of the development of the energy transition in the EU during the sub-period analysed.

Trajectories of the energy transition of the 28 member countries
Table 4 summarizes the results of the three partitions of the EU-28 countries into four homogeneous classes as carried out over the three sub-periods, and provides the characterization of the classes.
Note first that even though the temporal evolution of the EU's ET development identified three homogeneous sub-periods with distinct profiles, the three evolutionary analyses of the 28 EU countries show a certain stability in country trajectories, with all typologies having four homogeneous classes and almost identical profiles and anti-profiles.With the exception of Slovenia, Denmark and Lithuania, which had different paths in terms of ET development, the other 25 countries had an almost identical course throughout the period 2000-2015.

Table 4: Energy transition trajectories of the 28 EU members over the three sub-periods
The first class includes six countries over the entire period, namely Austria, Croatia, Finland, Latvia, Portugal and Sweden, and is also made up of Slovenia in the first sub-period, while Denmark and Lithuania join the class in the sub-period 2011-2015.A high share of RE in final energy consumption over the three sub-periods and low GHG emissions per capita over the 2000-2006 and 2011-2015  successful countries in terms of the ET.We observe that the countries which recorded the best performances at the beginning of the period have maintained their position as leaders, with a few exceptions.Denmark and Lithuania have engaged in ambitious programs to meet the energy and climate targets and joined this class over the period 2011-2015, while Slovenia broke away from this class.
The second class contains seven countries over the entire period 2000-2015: Romania, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Estonia, Czech Republic, Bulgaria.Lithuania also belongs to this class in the first two sub-periods only, while Slovenia joins in the sub-period 2011-2015.The characterization of the second class is stable over the three sub-periods.These countries have a PEI significantly higher than the average of the 28 EU countries.The other two components are no different from the EU averages.These are countries of the eastern bloc which suffer from entrenched specialization in heavy industries driven by central planners.It leads to a path of extensive (but wasteful) rather than intensive development to reach quick development.This results in a high level of PEI, i.e. a low efficacy in producing one unit of GDP.These stateoriented economies are marked by poorly defined property rights, a lack of market clearing prices and distorted productive capacities in relation to analogous market economies (HART et al. 1995).Despite their openness to liberalism since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the influence of their earlier historical path continues to manifest throughout the period.
The third class contains eleven countries over all three sub-periods: Malta, Italy, Spain, France, Ireland, Greece, Germany, Cyprus, Belgium, United Kingdom and Netherlands.Denmark is also attached to this class in the first two sub-periods, while Slovenia is in it for the intermediate sub-period (2007)(2008)(2009)(2010).The characterization of the class is stable over the period 2000-2015.This class gathers countries whose PEI and SREC are significantly below the respective averages of all the EU-28.These countries are diverse, being a mixture of developed countries which are relatively efficient in terms of production but not very aware and/or attentive to environmental concerns, and less developed countries (Malta, Greece and Cyprus) where the low PEI can be attributed to low industrialization.
We establish that the EU-28, projected a posteriori in each periodic analysis, is assigned to class 3 whatever the sub-period, meaning that the EU-28 has characteristics similar to those of class 3 with respect to the three components of the ET.
The fourth class consists solely of Luxembourg over the three sub-periods.Notably, Luxembourg is isolated in all the three sub-periods, differing from other EU countries over the three periods by having a significantly higher GHGE per capita than those of the EU over all three sub-periods, and a lower SREC from 2007.Luxembourg is a rich country with high GHGE.Moreover, we see that RE development has lagged since 2007.Contrary to results widely established in the literature (SADORSKY 2009b, MARQUES et al. 2010, MARQUES and FUINHAS 2011, APERGIS and PAYNE 2011, APERGIS and DANULETIU 2014), the positive link between economic growth and the use of renewable energy does not prevail in Luxembourg.Note that Luxembourg is a small and densely populated country, with a high density of road freight and many "cross-border workers", which contributes to its GHGE.In particular, fuel sales to non-residents have increased significantly, by 165% between 2000 and 2013.
The trajectories of the countries are seen to be stable, with only three countries changing class over the period 2000 to 2015.Lithuania moved from class 2, characterized by a high primary energy intensity over the period 2000-2010, to class 1, characterized by a low GHGE per capita and a high share of renewable energy over the period 2011-2015.Denmark has moved from class 3, characterized by a low energy intensity and a low share of RE over the period 2000-2010, to Class 1. Denmark has significantly evolved by the end of the period, significantly reducing its GHGE and has largely caught up in the development of RE.Slovenia changes class in each sub-period, moving from class 1 to class 2 and then to class 3, being the only country in which we observe a deterioration in the performance of the three components of the ET.Slovenia has reduced its efforts on GHG emissions, deployment of RE and energy efficiency.
Finally, we show that the trajectory of the EU towards the ET is well underway over the period 2011-2015, since over this sub-period the three components of the ET are seen to be evolving favourably: GHG emissions and energy intensity are decreasing while the share RE in final consumption is increasing.This means that countries on the whole are well oriented towards the ET, although differences persist between them in relation to the three components of the energy transition.Our results suggest that the global evolutionary trend, according to which improvements are seen for each of the three components, is being followed by all countries (except Slovenia); i.e. for all the countries it is improving.

The drivers of energy transition over the 2011-2015 period
In order to describe a posteriori the typology of the 28 EU countries over the period 2011-2015, we have considered a wide range of illustrative variables related to the five themes.These variables provide additional information with which to consolidate and enrich the internal interpretation given by the characterization of country classes relative to the components of the ET.Results are presented in Table A2 in the Appendix.
The first class (Austria, Croatia, Finland, Latvia, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark and Lithuania) is characterised by a high SREC and low GHGE per capita.This class can be called the virtuous class for ET.The energy balance sheets of countries in this class are characterized by significantly high shares of renewable energy and waste (non-renewable) and a small share of fossil and solid fuels in domestic energy consumption.Electricity generation from hydropower and renewable sources is rather high, while fossil fuels and in particular coal in 2012 and 2014 have lower usage in electricity generation which contributes to a low level of GHGE.The share of solar photovoltaic in gross inland RE consumption is rather low.For this class, water energy resources are above the average and the share of hydropower in gross inland RE consumption is higher than average, but only for 2011 and 2012.
High electric power transmission and distribution losses are indicative of low energy efficiency in the electricity transmission and distribution network.We note that the energy performances of the class 1 countries as evaluated by energy intensity, are not significantly different from the average of the 28 EU countries.This class also shows low carbon dioxide emissions per kg of oil equivalent energy used.CO2 emissions from transport are rather high, while emissions from residential buildings and commercial and public services are low.Compared to the EU averages, we find that the agriculture, forestry, fishing and construction sectors contribute more strongly to CO2 emissions, while the electricity, gas and air conditioning sectors contribute less.Countries in this class are low emitters of CO2 and GHG and exhibit a significant share of RE in their energy mix thanks to the historical importance of hydroelectric in these countries.
For this class, the economic variables do not differ from European averages.The performance of this class, as well as their economic structures, is therefore close to the averages observed for the 28 EU member countries.However, we can point out that government expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP is higher than the average for the years 2012 to 2014.
As regards political variables, only the natural gas prices and taxes and levies on natural gas for the industrial intermediate band are significant over the 2011-2015 period.
Forest area as a percentage of land is significant, while the proportion of land used for agriculture is low.Nevertheless, the area of agricultural land utilised for organic farming is significantly above the European average.Forests generally moderate climate change by absorbing about one-quarter of the carbon emitted by human activities such as burning fossil fuels and changing land use.The size of the forested areas contributes to explaining the lower CO2 and GHG emissions in this class.
The second class (Romania, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Estonia, Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Slovenia) is characterized by a PEI significantly higher than the average of the 28 EU countries.It is terms the low energy efficiency class.This low energy efficiency comes from the lower access to clean fuels and technologies for cooking.Having highly developed coal and nuclear energy sources, these countries are less dependent on energy imports.Indeed, the share of solid fuels in gross domestic consumption is significantly higher than the EU average, while the shares of oil (crude oil and petroleum products) and waste (non-renewable) in 2011 and 2012 are lower.Coal and nuclear sources make a significant contribution to electricity production while the shares of natural gas and renewable (total and excluding hydroelectric) sources in electric power are rather low.The biomass and renewable waste sector provided an important share of RE consumption from 2011 to 2013, while the share of wind power lags behind the average of the EU countries.This situation can be explained by the large size of the forested areas and the lower potential for the development of wind power due to the restricted coastal areas (which, being more windy, are the most favourable for wind power).
The CO2 emissions from solid fuel consumption are significant both in percentage terms and as kg per inhabitant, while the CO2 emissions from liquid fuel are rather low.These countries have made significant efforts to reduce their emissions, and the decrease in total greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 is significant in this class compared to the EU average.CO2 emissions from electricity and heat production are relatively high, whereas they are low in transport.The contribution of the electricity, gas and air conditioning sector to CO2 emissions is significant, as is the contribution of the mining and quarrying sector to carbon methane emissions.The share of the transportation and storage sector to carbon dioxide emissions is rather low, as is the share of agriculture, forestry and fishing to carbon methane emissions.
The countries of this class are mainly developing countries with a low GDP and final consumption expenditure per capita, a low median income, low education and health expenditures as percentages of GDP, and relatively few passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants.Yet gross capital formation as a percentage of GDP is significant.The percentage of the labour force with an advanced education is low and resource productivity (expressed as euros per kg) is below the EU average.This class shows a strong sectoral specialization with a large share of the agricultural and industrial sectors and an under representation of services both in terms of employment and value added.We also notice a high share of manufacturing in the value added.Although these countries are predominantly developing countries with a high energy intensity, contrary to expectations (SADORSKY 2009b, MARQUES et al. 2010, MARQUES and FUINHAS 2011, APERGIS and PAYNE 2011, APERGIS and DANULETIU 2014), they do not lag behind the EU average in terms of GHG emissions and the development of RE.Their efforts to reduce emissions are particularly sustained.
The importance of the energy sector in the activity of these countries is evident: total natural resource rents as a percentage of GDP are above average, as are energy taxes as a percentage of total revenues from taxes and social contributions.As mentioned in the literature (POTTERS and SLOOF 1996, FREDRIKSSON et al. 2004, KNITTEL 2006, MARQUES et al. 2010, CADORET and PADOVANO 2016), natural resource rents as well as the weight of manufacturing in value-added can represent the lobbying power of industries and mining companies and may be a barrier to the deployment of renewable energy.Many governance indicators are significant, suggesting that this class includes countries with poor governance performance.The corruption perception index7 is below the EU average, as is the control of corruption.Concomitantly, these countries perform worse than the European average on the variables for voice and accountability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality and rule of law.
Although lobbying activities are potentially important in this class, and the quality of governance is poor, air quality and the deployment of renewable energy are no different from the European average.It cannot be excluded, however, that the handicaps as revealed by the political variables are leading to pollution levels above the socially optimal level (LOPEZ and MIRA 2000).
The Central and Eastern European Countries have the lowest natural gas and electricity prices for households in the EU, and this is not only because the price excluding taxes is lower than the European average, but also because the level of taxation itself is low: the amount of VAT-free taxes is zero in the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Poland.It should be noted that countries in which markets have been liberalized often have higher prices than countries that remained in state monopolies, with control of tariffs resting with the government.
The populations of the countries in this class are mainly rural: the proportion of population living in urban agglomerations of more than 1 million inhabitants is below the EU average.
The third class (Malta, Italy, Spain, France, Ireland, Greece, Germany, Cyprus, Belgium, United Kingdom and Netherlands) includes countries whose PEI and SREC are significantly below the respective averages of all the EU-28.We term it the energy efficient class lagging behind in RE development.These countries are the most energy efficient, but are also the most dependent on energy imports.They are highly dependent on fossil fuels, and in particular oil.Fossil fuel energy consumption and share of fossil fuel and oil (crude oil and petroleum products) in gross inland consumption are significantly higher than the average of the EU-28.
Electricity production from fossil sources remains very high over the period 2011-2015, being mainly dependent on oil and gas sources.The shares of renewables and hydroelectrics in power generation are below the average for the EU-28.These countries also present a deficit in water energy sources.Compared to the EU average, the SREC is rather low in this class, this being explicable by the massive use of fossil fuels.However, this class is also the leader in the development of new renewable sources: the shares of wind power, solar thermic and solar photovoltaic energy in the domestic consumption of RE are significantly higher than the European Union averages.On the other hand, biomass and renewable waste are less prominent in the RE energy mix.Climatic variables can also help to explain the specific characteristics of this class in terms of choice of source of RE.Indeed, extensive shore areas and a temperate, warm and dry summer climate, are likely to favour the development of wind and solar power.
In this class it is likely that sensitivity to environmental issues and the desire to subscribe to the objectives of the climate energy package has motivated governments to develop new RE sources.However, the heavy reliance of these countries on hydrocarbons is probably a strong argument for developing RE sources.It follows that the CO2 emissions from liquid fuel consumption (% of total emissions) are significant, while the CO2 emissions from solid fuel consumption are lower.The CO2 emissions from residential buildings and commercial and public services (% of total fuel combustion) are also significant.The share of mining and quarrying in carbon methane emissions is below the EU average.We also observe an underrepresentation of jobs related to the circular economy in this class.
The countries in this class are relatively services-oriented, with a higher resource productivity than the EU average and a higher level of current health expenditure.The rate of household equipment in automobiles is also high.The total natural resources rents (% of GDP) is below the EU average, and manufacturing accounts for a small share of value added, while the share of chemicals as a percentage of the value added in manufacturing is high compared to the EU average.
The electricity prices for the industrial intermediate band (excluding taxes and levies) and for medium-size households (all taxes included) are above the average.Total natural resource rents as a percentage of PIB are relatively low.
This class is highly urbanized, with a population density above the European average.Agriculture is generally "productivist", with good results in cereal yields (kg per hectare) and a lower level of organic crops.Forest area as a percentage of total area is generally low.
The fourth class (Luxembourg) presents significantly higher GHGE than the EU average, as well as a lower SREC.This class stands in opposition to class 1, and we name it the non-virtuous class as regards the energy transition.Since 2013 Luxembourg has been highly dependent on energy imports.Its characteristics are those of a rich country with both primary and final energy and electricity consumption per capita significantly higher than those of the EU population on average.The share of crude oil and petroleum products in gross domestic consumption has been high since 2013, and natural gas is widely used in electricity production.The importance of GHG emissions and the heavy dependence of Luxembourg on hydrocarbon imports have not been sufficient to boost the development of renewable energy.Unlike the countries of class 3, energy dependence does not seem to be a problem for a country as rich as Luxembourg.
As one might expect, having a very energy-intensive economy Luxembourg also has a high level of CO2 emissions per capita as well as significant CO2 emissions from gaseous and liquid fuel consumption per capita.The country is a major transport node and has the highest road freight density in Europe.The share of CO2 emissions from transport in total fuel consumption is higher than the average, as is the share of transportation in total CO2 emissions and also in total carbon nitrous oxide emissions, while CO2 emissions from electricity and heat production (% of total fuel combustion) are below the average.Electricity and heat production contribute little to CO2 emissions compared to the EU average.Contrary to the results of MARQUES et al. ( 2010), the high level of CO2 and GHG emissions is not a determining factor in the deployment of renewable energy in this class.
From an economic point of view, classes 3 and 4 are very close.Economies are essentially service-oriented (the share of services is important both in terms of jobs and value added).Current health expenditure per capita, final consumption expenditure per capita, resource productivity, and passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants are higher than the European averages.Industry and manufacturing shares in added value are low.In addition, Luxembourg has the highest standard of living among the 28 member countries of the EU, which translates into a high GDP per capita and a high level of median income.
Here again Luxembourg is an exception that contradicts the prevalent assumptions and results (ZUINDEAU 2005) concerning the positive link between economic growth, sensitivity to the quality of the environment and deployment of clean energies.The high standard of living is not accompanied by a high sensitivity to environmental concerns and does not contribute to the development of cleaning techniques or the implementation of clean technologies.
The natural gas price excluding taxes and levies for the industrial intermediate band is above the average from 2011 to 2013.
Demographic, climatic and geographic variables are not significantly different from the European average in this class.
These results reveal strong national characteristics: four types of energy transition have been highlighted for the European Union over the period 2011-2015.Moreover, we observe that the variables of the five illustrative themes do make it possible to enrich the class profiles of the typology of 28 EU countries.However, we emphasize that some variables, such as political ideology, do not differ significantly between classes.Notably, government ideology does not seem to drive the energy transition path.

Assessment of performances against national climate targets
We have provided an inventory of the ET based on an evaluation of the three target variables.The contrasting levels of these variables in different countries led us to propose a typology of the 28 EU countries in four classes.However, taking into account national characteristics led the European Parliament to define differentiated target values.It therefore seems relevant to evaluate states' performances in relation to the objectives assigned to them.To assess the progress made as regards the ET, we use variables representing deviations from the national targets set by the Climate Energy Package for 2020.We thus consider the three targets: greenhouse gas emissions measured in tonnes of CO2 equivalents, share of renewable energy in final energy consumption, and primary energy consumption.The first two targets were translated into national targets which depend on national wealth, the starting situation of the different countries in terms of renewable energy production, and the capacity to increase it. 8The national targets for GHG emissions range from -20% for Denmark, Ireland and Luxembourg to + 20% for Bulgaria, while the share of RE has been set at 10% for Malta and at 49% for Sweden.The last target requires reducing energy consumption by 20% by 2020 compared to projections.In order to compare country performance, we calculated distances to target for each ET components and expressed them as a percentage.9DGHGE, DPEC and DSREC respectively represent the Distance from national target for Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Distance from National Target for Primary Energy Consumption, and Distance from National Target to Share of Renewable Energy in Final Energy Consumption.From these distance variables we also built three qualitative variables, AGHGE, APEC and ASREC, indicating whether the national objectives have been Achieved.
Figure 5 illustrates the number of countries that met or exceeded their development objectives according to the three components of the ET over the 2011-2015 period.This figure shows the efforts made by the EU countries, which are satisfactory with regard to GHG emissions, moderately satisfactory with regard to PE consumption, but lagging far behind in terms of development of RE, under half of EU countries having achieved this latter objective.Nevertheless, some countries have made sustained efforts over the 2011-2014 sub-period, with the number of countries meeting their SREC targets having increased from 2 to 13 during this time.In 2015 we observe a decline in performance, with the number of countries meeting the goals related to PEC and SREC having decreased.Moreover, over the whole period, only the GHG reduction target is achieved for the EU-28 for the years 2012, 2014 and 2015.These results lead us to question the future evolution of the three components for 2020 and beyond, as well as the determination of states to take up the climate challenge.

Figure 4: EU-28 countries that have reached their 2020 targets
Finally, we might wonder whether there is a match between the absolute and relative performance of countries as regards the ET.Are the virtuous countries also the ones who do the most to achieve their goals?To answer these questions, we projected all the six variables as illustrative variables into the evolutionary factor analysis and classification covering the period 2011-2015.The results are presented in Table A2 in the Appendix.
In each year of the 2011-2015 period, countries belonging to class 1, the "virtuous class", show a distance to their RE share target that is above the EU average, meaning that these countries have made greater efforts to meet or exceed their objectives and achieved their SREC target in 2012, 2014 and 2015.These eight were efficient throughout the 2011-2015 period in terms of reducing PEC, and achieved their PEC goal in 2012.With regard to the other two objectives, their performance is quite similar to the European average, with the exception of the year 2012 for which the PEC goal was reached.
Throughout the period, countries belonging to class 2, the "low energy efficiency class", present a distance to their GHGE targets that is lower than the European average and made greater efforts to meet their RE consumption objectives in 2011.These countries, mainly developing countries, have made significant efforts to control their GHGs.Note that the targets assigned to them vary from + 4% for Slovenia to + 20% for Bulgaria.Countries in this class have generally achieved their GHG objectives in 2011 and 2012.
For class 3 countries, the "energy efficiency class lagging behind in the development of renewable energies", the distances to targets are higher than the European averages for the three targets of the ET, reflecting insufficient efforts to achieve the objectives.In addition, we see that these countries never achieve their PEC objectives during the whole period and have not achieved their RE consumption objectives since 2012.
Finally, the only country in class 4, Luxembourg, which seemed to be "the least virtuous" country, is still at the level of the European average in terms of distances to the objectives that have been set for it.This clearly indicates that, despite an unfavourable situation, Luxembourg has made considerable efforts to reach its objectives, albeit insufficient to achieve The results we have revealed are not in line with the ambitions and commitments of the EU.Although progress has been made, we note that the EU Member States' performances fluctuate greatly from one year to the next, and that no major trend toward achieving the SREC and PEC goals is emerging.In particular, the large western countries in Class 3 are significantly behind in achieving their objectives, notably Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, as well as Ireland with regard to the development of renewables and the reduction of primary energy consumption.Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands are also lagging behind in reducing GHG emissions.

Lessons for the future?
The lessons from economic theory as well as the observation of the facts lead us to question the motivation and incentive of states to engage firmly but unilaterally in energy transition.A unilateral policy with high carbon taxation, intended to fight against climate change, may indeed lead companies to relocate their production and therefore emissions in countries that are less environmentally responsible and emit more GHGs.Similarly, an increase in the taxation of petroleum products in order to reduce fossil fuel consumption tends to reduce world oil prices and hence boost global demand and GHG emissions by non-virtuous countries.Regionally fragmented climate policies are prone to regional carbon leakage, raising concerns about the effectiveness of regional environmental policies (ARROYO-CURRÁS et al. 2015).Furthermore, many countries show free-rider behaviours, causing others to bear the burden of climate change, which acts as a disincentive for them to mitigate their emissions.For all these reasons, TIROLE (2016) argues that only a global agreement can solve climate issues.
Over the past 25 years, Europeans have believed that their commitment to reducing GHG emissions would serve as a template for the rest of the world: but no spill-over effect has materialized.In a context marked by the disengagement of the biggest polluters, namely Canada, and more recently Australia and the United States, Europe, as virtuous as it is, cannot fight against climate change alone.In 2015, the EU-28 accounted for 12.6% of world primary energy consumption and contributed 10.6% of GHG emissions.Its contribution to world renewable energy production was 17%, reaching 36.5% for wind and 43.8% for solar. 10 Nowadays, the majority of anthropogenic emissions are due to emerging countries: the joint growth in population and standard of living will lead to a sustained increase in energy consumption.Unfortunately, in many of these countries, coal power stations are expanding.For example, China's GHG emissions increased by 355% over the 1990-2015 period, with its contribution to world GHG emissions rising from 10.5% to 29.7%.
10 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2018.

Conclusion and policy implications
The originality of this contribution lies in the spatial dimensions chosen, the diversity of the variables considered, and the multidimensional data analysis methods used.The objective of this article was to better understand the energy transition in UE-28 over the period 2000-2015 and to compare the performances of the 28 countries in order to identify barriers and levers relating to the energy transition.Several interesting results emerge.
First of all, there are clearly three homogeneous sub-periods that characterize the transition from an economy that is a high emitter of GHG, energy-intensive, and with little RE, to a more environmentally conscious economy, engaged in reducing its GHG emissions and developing RE.This first result shows the success of the European environmental policy, which is moving towards achieving the objectives set for 2020.
Second, we identified four distinct types of energy transition profiles over the three subperiods, and point out a stability in country trajectories.With the exception of Slovenia, Denmark and Lithuania, which had different paths in terms of energy transition over the three sub-periods, the 25 other countries had an almost identical course throughout the period 2000-2015.What is remarkable in this classification of countries is that very few changes occur.This very steady structure reveals that the disparities between the countries in the early 2000s persisted from 2011 to 2015.The countries where the initial situation was favourable reinforced this situation, while others were unable to fill the gap -with the exception of Denmark and Lithuania, which reached the class of virtuous countries over the period 2011-2015.Note that despite numerous factors that are unfavourable to the development of a low-carbon economy, the performances of the Central and Eastern European Countries in the development of renewable energies and GHG emissions is consistent with the European average.Third, illustrative variables related to the five illustrative themes considered have made it possible to enrich the class profiles of the national typology of the 28 EU countries.Classes exhibit significant differences in their energy, environmental, economic, geographic, climatic and political characteristics.However, we have shown that some variables, notably political ideology, do not seem to drive the energy transition path.Our results suggest that the main driver for the development of new RE sources is a strong dependence on energy imports, except for Luxembourg.In addition, climatic and geographical variables can influence the choice of renewable energy sectors.
Fourth, to assess the progress made by each country towards the energy transition, we considered distance variables to the three national targets defined by the Climate Energy Package for 2020.We found that the results obtained are not in line with the ambitions and the commitments of the European Union.Progress has been made, but the performance of the EU Member States varies considerably from one year to the next.Major Western European countries, namely Belgium, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Ireland, are lagging behind in achieving their goals for developing renewable energy and reducing primary energy consumption.Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands are also lagging behind in reducing GHG emissions, with no reduction evident in these three countries by the end of the period.Luxembourg, at the opposite end of the scale, has made some effort to improve its position, even if its position is still one of the worst in the EU.
While it is indisputable that European environmental policy has led countries to make efforts in the right direction, we find that the results are starkly insufficient compared to the objectives set.What is more, in 2015 European countries appeared to begin to disengage from the process.EUROSTAT (2018) estimates that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion increased by 1.8% in the European Union in 2017 compared to the previous year.The projections presented in the latest IPCC Special Report (6 October 2018) on GHG emissions are also alarming.Questions may therefore be raised regarding the motivations of States to implement the measures necessary to fight against climate change.In particular, should the poor performance of Western European countries be attributed to insufficient commitment, or to overly restrictive national objectives?Despite the obstacles to the deployment of a low-carbon European strategy, several recommendations can be made to promote the energy transition and strengthen Europe's leading position.There is a need to better target public policies and spending to ensure a sustainable and efficient allocation of energy resources, specifically by: (i) Promoting both energy savings and the substitution of fossil fuels by low-carbon energy (gas, hydrogen, RE), particularly in the transportation and tertiary sector sectors where GHG emissions continue to grow, pursuing a proactive policy of thermal renovations, vehicle fleet replacement, etc.Moreover, transport logistics needs to be redesigned by promoting local production, rail transport, carpooling, teleworking, etc.
(ii) Ensuring better coordination of national and European policies, as electricity grids are interconnected at European level; a European energy policy would better handle the intermittency of renewable energies and increase energy efficiency.It seems necessary that the steering of the energy transition be carried out at the European level to ensure overall coherence, and that funding and public support mechanisms must be sustainable in order to provide a clear and legible framework for investment.
(iii) Highlighting the energy potential of each region and concentrating subsidies on sectors with a comparative advantage that can effectively contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.TIROLE (2016) argues that economic efficiency is imperative to the success of environmental policy.He points out that the choice of energy sources by public authorities often leads to a lack of coherence which significantly increases the cost of reducing GHG emissions.He cites the case of photovoltaics in Germany, a country with little sun that has invested heavily in first-generation photovoltaic energy: "For the same cost, we could have reduced emissions by 100 tons instead of one".The German government has conceded that the country is on track to miss its 2020 climate targets by a wide margin.Without an exit from coal, Germany will not be able to fulfil its commitments.Moreover, subsidies for RE development have led to distortions of competition between the energy sectors and have proved economically inefficient.This is the result of support schemes for the development of electric REs which largely benefit the wind and photovoltaic sectors, and result in operating subsidies through purchase obligations and compensation mechanisms.In France, the COUR DES COMPTES (2018) points to abuses of public support for RE.In particular, electric REs benefit from the bulk of public spending, and "thermal REs now receive the equivalent of one tenth of the volume of public support devoted to RE while they represent 60% of national production, excluding transport".State subsidies are also disproportionate compared to the contribution of sectors to RE development objectives: for example, two-thirds of efforts are devoted to photovoltaics, whose production represents only 0.7% of the French electricity mix.Germany is the biggest polluter in Europe, contributing 21.5% of the EU-28's GHG emissions.To achieve the ambitious GHG reduction targets, it will be necessary to reconsider the contribution of nuclear power to the energy mix.In the different scenarios that may contain GHG emissions, the IPCC considers there could be a growing share of nuclear power.Moreover, the development of RE must be carried out in a rational way: substituting RE for nuclear energy in no way improves the carbon footprint, nuclear power being a low-carbon energy and renewable energy requiring the use of fossil-fuelled plants to manage intermittence.It is also undeniable that the intermittency of renewable energies requires overcapacity to avoid the occurrence of a black-out in electricity supply in the European network.
(iv) Implementing an ambitious R&D program promoting development and large-scale deployment of low-carbon technologies and fuel substitutions (hydrogen, natural gas, sustainable bio-based feedstocks) through combinations of new and existing technologies and practices, including electricity storage to overcome intermittency, and carbon capture, utilization and storage.Following the US disengagement, Europe has the opportunity to become the world leader in the energy transition technological sector.Europe can become the continent that invents the future, and thus attracts capital and talent from all the world to fight against global warming (AUSSILLOUX and TRANNOY 2017).
(v) It would be more effective to target the carbon footprint rather than greenhouse gas emissions, so as to account for the carbon content of imports, while introducing consumption taxes to penalize imported high-carbon products.Because the taxation of emitted pollutants is done at the level of the firm, an increase in taxes is an incentive to delocalize.Note that the functioning of the European Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), a pillar of the EU's climate change policy, is not satisfactory.The EU ETS has for years been characterized by endemic over-allocation, while the high volatility of the price of CO2 does not provide enough visibility for companies to invest in energy efficiency.From this point of view, a fixed tax defined via a multi-year plan would be more effective.However, for the reasons mentioned above, it would seem yet more efficient to introduce a tax on products which was proportional to the carbon footprint.NORDHAUS (2015) establishes that a regime with small trade penalties on nonparticipants, what we may call a Climate Club, can induce a large stable coalition with high levels of GHG abatements.SPRINGMANN et al. (2017) show that there is substantial global climate change mitigation potential for emissions pricing for food commodities.Consequently, in the absence of a binding global agreement, European commitments will fail to be honoured without taxing imported products or imposing trade sanctions on participants who do not comply with European environmental standards.
Gas Emissions per capita SREC: Share of Renewable Energy Consumption PEI: Primary Energy Intensity

Figure 2 :
Figure 2: Representations of ET components and years in the first principal plane of the PCA for 2020.It should be emphasized that over the whole period 2011-2015, Luxembourg has met its PEC objective.

Figure 1 :
Figure 1: Hierarchical tree over the sub-period 2011-2015 for the ET of EU-28

Table 3 :
Summary of EU energy transition profiles by sub-periodThe first period, comprising the six first years, 2000-2006, is characterized by high PEI, high GHGE, and low SREC.
sub-period characterize the first class.This class gathers the most

Table A1 : illustrative variables
Köppen-Geiger, adapted from) 1: Continental very cold 2: Continental cold and very cold 3: Continental cold 4: Continental warm summer 5: Continental, partially warm summer and temperate 6: Temperate, wet 7: Temperate, wet with mountains 8: Partially temperate, wet and continental cold 9: Temperate, partially wet, partially dry, warm in summer 10: Temperate, warm and dry in summer 11: Temperate, dry, warm or temperate summer 12: Temperate, warm and dry or temperate in summer, partially Dry (in summer