Renewable Energy 46 (2012) 192e202

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Efficiency assessment of the hydro-power plants in Turkey by using Data

Envelopment Analysis
_
Adnan Sözen a, *, Ihsan Alp b, Cuma Kilinc a
a
Gazi University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Energy Systems Engineering, 06500 Teknikokullar, Ankara, Turkey
b
Gazi University, Faculty Sciences, Department of Statistics, 06500 Teknikokullar, Ankara, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, the efficiency analyses of ten hydro-power plants (HPP) used for electricity generation were
Received 4 October 2011 conducted through Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and window analysis (WA). Two efficiency indexes,
Accepted 12 March 2012 based on production and energy unit cost performance were defined and pursued. In the calculation of
Available online 7 April 2012
operational performance, the main production factors were used as inputs, and net production was used
as the output (Model 1). On the other hand, in the calculation of energy costs, the cost of generating
Keywords:
a unit energy in terms of TL (Turkish Liras), were used as the output (Model 2). Data Envelopment
Hydro-power plant
Analysis (DEA) is the main instrument for measurement of relative performances of decision making
Efficiency
Window analysis
units with multiple inputs and outputs. Constant returns to scale (CRS or CCR) and variable returns to
scale (VRS or BCC) type DEA models were used in the analyses for this study. The relationship between
efficiency scores and input/output factors was also investigated. Employing the obtained results, the
hydro-power plants were evaluated with respect to both the cost of energy generation and the net
production. The inputs of HPPs are not serially independent, such as the water collection at the dam
reservoir through consecutive years. Thus, changes in performance relative to preceding or following
years were also investigated by window analysis.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 216 TWh/year, respectively. On the other hand, the economically

According to the 2009 Report of the International Energy Agency
[1], the distribution of global electricity generation in terms of resource
utilization is as follows; petroleum products 5.6%, natural gas 20.9%,
coal 41.5%, nuclear power 13.8%, hydraulic power 15.6%, and non-
hydraulic renewable, and other resources at 2.6%. Turkey possesses
limited conventional energy resources such as oil and natural gas, and
she is inevitably dependent on foreign energy exporters for the
provision of these resources. The main energy resources Turkey has
are the low quality lignite and hydroelectric resources.
The total installed power generation capacity of Turkey was
44,761 MW, and the total energy production was 194,062 GWh
according to 2009 data [1]. Thermal, hydroelectric and the combi-
nation of geothermal and wind power plants constitute 53.7%,
32.5% and 2% of the installed capacity in Turkey as of 2009,
respectively, as shown below (Fig. 1).
The gross hydroelectric potential and the technically utilizable
hydroelectric potential of Turkey are estimated as 433 and
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ90 312 2028607; fax: þ90 312 2120059.
E-mail address: asozen@gazi.edu.tr (A. Sözen).
URL: http://websitem.gazi.edu.tr/asozen
utilizable installed capacity and the annual average energy gener-
ation were determined approximately as 35,500 MW and 126 TWh/
year, respectively. The gross hydroelectric potential of Turkey
comprises about 1% of the world total and about 14% of the Euro-
pean total. Although Turkey cannot be considered as rich in terms of
hydroelectric energy potential with respect to the global perspec-
tive, it nevertheless ranks in the first quartile within the European
countries. In terms of utilizing water resources in Turkey, hydraulic
energy generation projects occupy a considerable portion [2e6].
The important river basins with an annual hydro-power
generation potential exceeding 5 TWh are as follows: Fırat
(38,070 GWh), Dicle (16,702 GWh), Eastern Black Sea (11,271 GWh),
Çoruh (10,630 GWh), Seyhan (7968 GWh), Kızılırmak (6229 GWh),
Yesilırmak (5308 GWh), Eastern Mediterranean (6212 GWh) and
Antalya (5089 GWh) [2,6,7]. The 130 hydro-power plants in oper-
ation have a combined installed capacity of 12,251 MW and an
annual average generation of 44,388 GWh. Thus, only 35% of the
technically and economically utilizable hydroelectric potential of
Turkey is being exploited as of today.
The efficient usage of the hydroelectric potential of Turkey,
which constitutes for the larger portion of its total installed
capacity, is of great importance with respect to overall energy

0960-1481/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.03.021
 A. Sözen et al. / Renewable Energy 46 (2012) 192e202 193

Fig. 1. Share of primary energy sources in Turkey’s installed capacity in 2009.

generation. In this study, an efficiency assessment of a hydroelectric Fig. 2. Individual shares of hydro-power plants in Turkey’s total hydro electric
power plant portfolio which comprises of 53.63% of the installed production in 2009.
capacity and 49.79% of the total generation was carried out
(Table 1). The breakdown of the installed capacity and power
generation figures of the hydro-power plants in this portfolio are scale (CRS or CCR) and variable returns to scale (VRS or BCC) type
given in Fig. 2. DEA models were used in the analyses. The relationship between
In this study, an efficiency analysis was conducted to determine efficiency scores and input/output factors was investigated.
the generation (Model 1) and energy cost (TL/kWh) (Model 2) Fully efficient plants were determined and inefficient plants’
performances of the hydro-power plants in operation whose data deficiencies in output and redundancies in inputs (wasted inputs)
to be analyzed was fully accessible during the periods of observa- were exposed as compared to efficient plants. The tangible and
tion. There exist ten hydro-power plants operated by Electricity quantitative findings of this study will contribute to Turkey,
Generation Cooperation Company (EÜAŞ), the state-owned elec- a country with limited energy resources, in her efforts to enhance
tricity generation company. the performance of its existent power plants so that they can more
In this study, both the production and energy cost performances efficiently convert the input resources into electrical energy. Finally,
of the power plans were investigated. In Model 1, the installed we hope that the results of this study are referred as one of the
power, water collected at the dam reservoir and the net production primary resources for making policy suggestions and establishing
are taken as inputs, while the capacity utilization rate is considered hydro-power management strategies for Turkey. Comprehending
as the output. In Model 2, the inputs are the amount of water the level of stability with respect to performance scores is of utmost
collected at the dam, the gross generation and finally the opera- importance for energy administration authorities, when the
tional costs, while the output is unit cost of energy generation. general trends in the performance during the observed years are
Data Envelopment Analysis is used in the efficiency analysis and evaluated relative to the data from prior and posterior years.
variation in the efficiency throughout years is investigated by
Window analysis. DEA approach gained great popularity in energy 2. Efficiency analysis
and emissions modeling and measurement of energy efficiency in
power plants during the past decade. Zhou et al. [8] summarized 2.1. Material
roughly 100 different studies conducted on the use of DEA in
energy and environmental analysis in an invited paper. Materials used within the scope of this study include the data
Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is the main instrument of taken from Electricity Generation Cooperation Company (EÜAS).
choice for the measurement of relative performances of decision The input and output variables selected for the performance eval-
making units with multiple inputs and outputs. Constant returns to uation in this study are presented in Table 2.
Short definitions of the input and output variables used in the
analysis are as follows:
Table 1 Capacity usage factor (%): The period of time that the power
The hydro-power plants chosen for the analysis.
plant is actually available for producing power. Here the
Hydro-power plants (DMUs) Total installed Gross generation
capacity (MW) (GWh)
Atatürk 2405 4525.4 Table 2
Keban 1330 3958.8 Input and output variables of the models used in the study.
Karakaya 1800 4556.7
Altinkaya 702.55 436 Variables Model 1 Model 2
Hasan Ugurlu 500 1658.4 (input/output) (input/output)
Borçka 300.6 936.9 Capacity Usage Factor (%) (CUF) I (uncontrollable)
Gökçekaya 278.4 420.3 Installed Capacity (IC) (MW) I
Çatalan 168.9 627.1 Water collection at the dam I (uncontrollable) I (uncontrollable)
Sariyar 160 307.2 reservoir (m3)
Gezende 159.4 475.7 Net generation (kWh) O
Total 7804.85 17902.5 Unit cost (TL/GWh) O
Total hydro-power plants of Turkey 14553.3 35958.4 Gross generation (kWh) I
Contribution rate 53.63% 49.79% Operational costs (TL) I
194 A. Sözen et al. / Renewable Energy 46 (2012) 192e202

expectation is to have a measure of the plant’s availability and in the model (constant returns to scale (CCR or CRS), or variable
reliability for electricity production and delivery. returns to scale (BCC or VRS) which are introduced by Charnes et al.
Installed capacity: Installed capacity is also called nameplate [17] CCR, Banker et al. [18] BCC, respectively). Both input and output-
capacity or maximum capacity. It simply refers to the maximum oriented models can be used, depending on which variable is the
amount of electric power available from the collective operation of target variable. For example, if the objective is to maximize the
all turbines in a dam operating at the maximum capacity. In prac- output using the given set of inputs, one should use an output-
tice, no power station ever produces at maximum capacity over oriented model. Otherwise, if the objective is to produce a given
a sustained period of time due to maintenance needs, lack of output using a minimum of inputs, an input-oriented model is
demand or, in the case of hydro dams, lack of water. preferred. In this study, output-oriented production efficiency
Water collection at the dam reservoir: Refers to the volume of model (Model 1) and input-oriented cost efficiency model (Model 2)
water collected behind the dam constructed for electrical energy were used. CCR (CRS) and BCC (VRS) analyses were conducted for
generation both models. Using output-oriented models, the efficiency score is
Net generation: The commercially available energy from a power determined by holding the set of inputs input constant and assess-
plant, calculated by deducting the energy consumption of the plant ing to what extent the level of output would have to be improved
from its gross generation. (increased) in order for the DMU to be considered efficient. At the
Gross generation: The energy production obtained from the input-oriented case, exactly the opposite strategy applies, holding
turbines throughout the year. the output constant and seeking a reduction in inputs.
Operating costs: The total of non-investment year long costs The dual form of CCR (CRS) output-oriented and input-oriented
incurred in a power plant related to operation, maintenance- models are as follows:
reparation, and personnel costs.
Energy cost/actual production (Y): The total annual cost of the P
s P
m
max ho ¼ f þ ε Sþ
r þε S
i
fuel used in the plant (in Turkish Liras (TL); 1TL ¼ w0.66 $.) for r¼1 i¼1
generation of the annual amount of electricity by the power plant Subject to
(in GWh). Pn
f$yro  lj yrj þ Sþ
r ¼ 0
Among these variables, data pertaining to the water collection at j¼1 (1)
the dam reservoir were divided by 106 in order to normalize its P
n
vastly different scale in comparison to other variables such as gross
lj xij þ S
i ¼ xio
j¼1
production, operating costs and gross generation. Some of the input lj; Si ; Sþ

r 
0
variables are described as uncontrollable variables as their excesses j ¼ 1; .; n; i ¼ 1; .; m; r ¼ 1; .; s
cannot be taken into account for performance assessment
purposes; such as the installed power, incoming water and capacity
P
m P
s
utilization rate. min ho ¼ f  ε S
i ε Sþ
r
i¼1 r¼1
2.2. Methodology Subject to
P
n
f$xio  lj xij  S
i ¼ 0
2.2.1. Data Envelopment Analysis j¼1
(2)
Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is a linear programming- P
n
lj yrj  Sþ
r ¼ yro
based technique that analyses the technical efficiency of decision j¼1
making units (DMUs). A DMU is defined as the tangible or intan- lj; S þ
i ; Sr
0
gible asset responsible for transforming a set of inputs into outputs, j ¼ 1; .; n; i ¼ 1; .; m; r ¼ 1; .; s
whose performance is supposed to be evaluated. Examples of such
units to which DEA has been applied are as follows: banks, hospi-
tals, universities, airports, tax offices, libraries, schools or their Where the subscript o represents the DMU being assessed and ho
departments and also environment and energy organizations denotes efficiency score of DMUo. xij, yrj denotes the input i and
[9e16]. Note that one advantage of DEA is that it can be applied to output r of DMUj, respectively. ε is an arbitrary small “non-Archi-
not-for-profit entities participating in public programs. medean” number. S þ
i ; Sr are the slacks in the ith input and the rth
DEA is a technique that is used to estimate the relevant tech- output and n, m and s are the number of DMUs, inputs, and outputs,
nology over the production possibilities frontier on the basis of respectively.
what is observed. The production possibilities frontier is defined as For VRS (BCC) output-oriented model the following constraint is
the set of inputeoutput combinations. The boundary of this set, imposed on the equations (1,2).
reflecting the greatest amount of output that can be produced from Xn
a given amount of input, defines the relevant technology or l
j¼1 j
¼ 1
production function. Based on this, it is then possible to compute
the efficiency score of a given decision making unit, a measure of its From the CCR (BCC) model, output augmentation is accom-
relative distance to the frontier surface. In DEA, one uses a series of plished through the efficiency indicator variable f. If f is greater
linear programming problems to determine this production fron- than 1.0 (or 100) and/or the slacks are not zero, then the DMU under
tier surface. The efficiency of each DMU is evaluated against this investigation is inefficient. To improve and shift the DMU towards
frontier surface. Hence the efficiency of each DMU is evaluated the efficient frontier, a proportional increase in f for all outputs is
relative to the performance of other DMUs. DEA assigns specific required, followed potentially, by an adjustment of individual slacks.
weights to the input/s and output/s of a DMU that give it the At the input-oriented CCR (BCC) models exactly the opposite
maximum possible efficiency score. technique is applied, i.e. if f is less than 1.0 (or 100) and/or the
Numerous DEA models have been developed since 1978. DEA slacks are not zero, then the DMU in question is inefficient.
models can be classified by considering two criteria,; namely the DEA CRS and VRS models is shown as an example graphically in
type of scale effects and model orientation. The first criterion Fig. 3. Fig. 1. consist of six DMUs which are (A, B, C, D, E, F) and
determines the assumptions concerning the scale effects assumed indicates how to measure technical efficiency and inefficiency
 A. Sözen et al. / Renewable Energy 46 (2012) 192e202
Fig. 3. DEA CRS and VRS efficiency frontiers and measurements.
through the one input and one output case. There are two lines: one
is a linear line with the constant returns to scale (CRS) case; the
other is a convex line with returns to scale (VRS) case. More
specifically, in the Fig. 1. The CRS case is the straight line 0BD and
the VRS case is the convex (bold) line LABDEF.
The objective of a DEA model is to determine which of the n
DMUs determine the efficient frontier. To be technical efficient, and
thus to be part of the efficient frontier/on the efficient frontier. The
B and D DMUs on this line so efficient DMUs with respect to CRS
model. The efficient DMUs will have a technical efficiency score 1 or
100. For example for DMU B, JB/JB which is equal to 1. Based on the
CRS model DMUs that do not lie on that CRS efficient frontier are
regarded as inefficient DMUs (A, C, E and F are inefficient DMUs). In
terms of measurement of technical efficiency, DMU G is repre-
sented by an inefficient DMU because the degree of the inefficiency
of DMU G is indicated by the distance between G0 and itself. Under
an input orientation model, the technical efficiency of DMU G is
KG0 /KG in the CRS case and less than 1 or 100. This value is the
shrinkage coefficient for input/inputs of this inefficient DMU. The
inputs were to be reduced at this rate then this DMU rises to the
efficient position.
Under the variable returns assumption, A, C, D, E and F named
DMUs are now regarded as technical efficient. The rest of DMUs (G
and C) are technical ineffiecient because they are below the VRS
efficient frontier. The technical efficiency of DMU G is KG00 /KG in the
VRS case and less than 1 or 100 and greater or equal to CRS case
everytime.
DEA output-oriented model is illustrated graphically in Fig. 4.
There are two output (Y1, Y2) proportioned to one input (X) and
eight DMUs from A to H. The efficient frontier is a convex line EFGH.
E, F, G, and H are efficient DMUs because they are on the efficient
frontier and have efficiency score 1or 100. The rest of DMUs (A, B, C,
D) are technically inefficient because they are below the efficient
frontier. The inefficient DMUs will have greater than 1 or 100. For
example in the case of the output orientation model, the technical
efficiency of DMU C would be given provided by OC/OC0 which is
greater then unity. This value is the expansion coefficient for
195
Fig. 4. Efficiency frontier of an output-oriented model and measurements.
output/outputs of this inefficient DMU. The outputs were to be
accessed at this rate then inefficient DMU rises to the efficient
position. In addition, DMU C, should be referenced/benchmarked F
and G DMUs with the rates of FC0 and C0 G respectively.
2.2.2. Window analysis
In many DEA applications cross-sectional data were used and
each DMU unit is observed only one time in the studies. If multi-
period data exist, in combination with the individual efficiency of
each DMU, it is often important to perform a panel data analysis
where the focus is on changes in efficiency over time. However, for
this purpose, one approach to performing longitudinal analysis is to
compare cross-sectional performance series across the number of
time periods in the study. This approach introduces variability into
the analysis because it treats the performance of a DMU in each
time period as independent from its performance in the previous
period. Also, with this approach it is not feasible to ascertain trends
in performance or to observe persistence of efficiency or ineffi-
ciency, where the window analysis approach corrects some of these
problems. In such a setting, it is possible to perform DEA over time
using a moving average analogue (of time series), where a DMU in
each different time period is treated as a distinct DMU. Specifically,
a DMU’s performance in a particular period is contrasted with its
performance in other periods in addition to the performance of the
other DMUs [19,20].
While ordinary DEA results table can be named as “static table”,
window analysis results table is regarded as “dynamic table”.
The following concepts and formulas can be used in an appli-
cation of a window analysis:n ¼ number of DMUs, k ¼ number of
periods, w ¼ number of windows, p ¼ length of windows.
In this study the number of DMUs (the number of power plants,
n) is 10. Number of periods (k) is 3 as the years of observation are
2007, 2008, and 2009. Performance of power plants may be
dependant on the previous year so the window length (p) is 2. In
this application,# of windows: w ¼ k  p þ 1 ¼ 3  2 þ 1 ¼ 2.# of
DMUs in each window: n p/2 ¼ 10 * 2/2 ¼ 10.# of different DMUs: n
p w ¼ 10 * 2 * 2 ¼ 40.
The structure of Table 3 portrays the underlying framework of
the window analysis. For the first window, Ataturk power plant is
196 A. Sözen et al. / Renewable Energy 46 (2012) 192e202
Table 3
Number of benchmarking of efficient plants and peer names and weight values for
inefficient plants according to the CRS analysis results of Model 1 for 2009.
Hydro power plants Numbers on the right indicate the references for
efficient plants (in cases with dark background
colors); and the peer names and weight values
for inefficient plants which are indicated by a
white background
Atatürk 0
Keban 4 ciency score of 107.64%. Hence, the plant needs to raise its output by
Karakaya 0 7.64% in order to attain efficient status.
Altinkaya Keban (0.2289)
Hasan Ugurlu 3 comparatively in Fig. 5. Atatürk, Karakaya and Keban hydro- power
Borçka Hasan Ugurlu (0.5541) Çatalan(0.1394)
Gökçekaya Keban (0.1227)
Çatalan 1 returns to scale) analysis results of Model 1 (Generation Efficiency)
Sariyar Keban (0.0133) Hasan Ug urlu (0.2722)
Gezende Keban (0.0127) Hasan Ug urlu (0.2732)
represented within the constraints of DEA model as though it were
a different DMU in during the two-year (2007, and 2008) sample
set of 10 DMUs. Hence, when a power plant is evaluated for its year
2007 efficiency, its own performance data for years 2007 and 2008
are included in the constraint sets, along with similar performance
data obtained from the other power plants for years 2007 and 2008.
Thus the results of the first window consist of 10 scores under each
of the columns 2007 and 2008 corresponding to each row of power
plants. Then the window is shifted one period, and an analysis is
performed on the second two-year (2008 and 2009) set of obser-
vations for the 10 DMUs. If there exists more periods, then the
process continues in this manner shifting the window forward one
period at a time.
3. Application results and discussion
In this study prepared by Dortmund University [21] packages
were used for the efficiency measurement calculations.
Two distinct efficiency models were established, where the
input and output variables of each model are different than those of
the other.
The objectives of the study are as follows:
Model 1 Determination of the net production efficiency of the
power plants.
Model 2 Determination of the efficiency in which the cost per unit
energy generated is the output and the main production
variables are the inputs.
When there are statistically significant differences between CRS
and VRS efficiencies, one should use scale efficiency values. Results
of the input-oriented model were either 100 or close. The plants
with less than 100% efficiency indicate to (inefficient) decision-
making units.
Efficiency assessments were conducted by both DEA and
Window models for both of the models and the results are pre-
sented below under separate sections.
3.1. Results of DEA
3.1.1. Findings on hydro-power plants’ Net Generation efficiencies
(Model 1)
The results of (Generation Efficiency) analysis as per Model 1
which used the net generated energy as the output and the main
production variables of the hydro-power plant as inputs are
investigated. For Model 1, output-oriented DEA analysis was con-
ducted to determine the DMU level that maximizes the generation
for any given set of inputs. If the efficiency score determined by the
output-oriented model is 1 or 100% and neither of the unit’s inputs
or outputs exhibit composite inefficiency, the plant is defined as
efficient. The plants with score above 100 are inefficient, which
means that it needs to multiply its output as much as the efficiency
score in order to be deemed as efficient. For instance, according to
the generation efficiency model in view of the CRS analysis results,
Gezende plant was not efficient in 2009, inferred from the effi-
The efficiencies of the hydro-power plants are presented
plants were found to be efficient according to the CRS (constant
during the selected years. On the other hand, all of Atatürk, Kar-
akaya, Keban, Gökçekaya, Gezende and Çatalan hydro-power plants
were efficient according to the variable returns to scale (VRS) model
during the selected years (Fig. 6). In order to make the inefficient
hydro-power plants efficient, the inputs of the hydro-power plants
have to be reduced in accordance with their efficiency scores
obtained via the CRS analyses for 2009. As the VRS analysis results
suggest, the path to efficiency recommended in CRS model should
also be followed in this model in order to promote the inefficient
hydro-power plants to efficient status.
According to the results of the CRS analyses, the efficiency
figures of Borçka, Gökçekaya, Çatalan, Sarıyar and Gezende hydro-
power plants were negatively influenced from the scarcity of water
collection at the dams arising from the low precipitation level in
2007. According to the CRS analysis results of Model 1 for 2009,
Keban hydro-power plant was deemed as a reference for 4 hydro-
power plants, while Hasan Ug urlu and Çatalan hydro-power
plants a reference for 3 and 1 hydro-power plants, respectively.
Similarly, according to the VRS analysis results of Model 1, Keban
and Gezende hydro-power plant acted as a reference for 1 hydro-
power plant (Sarıyar hydro-power plant). In other words, ineffi-
cient plants should take the Keban and Gezende plants as their role
models with respect to utilization of the inputs and outputs, since
these reference plants were efficient in terms of converting their
inputs into outputs. The required resemblance percentages for the
power plants with respect to specific reference hydro-power plants
is given for each hydro-power plant in the references column in
Table 3 and Table 4.
3.1.2. Findings on hydro-power plants’ energy cost efficiencies
(Model 2)
Minimization of the energy costs is targeted through the
conduction of input-oriented CRS and VRS analysis by Model 2. If
Fig. 5. CRS efficiencies of the power plants as per Model 1.
 A. Sözen et al. / Renewable Energy 46 (2012) 192e202 197

Fig. 6. VRS efficiencies of the power plants for Model 1.

Fig. 7. CRS efficiencies of the power plants for Model 2.

the efficiency score determined from the input-oriented model is 1
or 100%, and no hybrid inefficiency is present in the unit’s inputs or
outputs, the power plant is considered to be efficient. The power
plants whose efficiency scores are less than 100 are inefficient. A
further meaning of the efficiency score for an inefficient plant is
that the units can promote to efficiency status by decreasing their
inputs as much as the inefficiency score. For instance, considering
Gezende plant in year 2009 and its efficiency score of 65.21%, it can
be asserted that it needs to reduce its inputs by 34.79% to achieve
efficiency. In Model 2, a reduction in the water flow into the dam
reservoir is out of question as it is regarded as an uncontrollable
variable.
According to the CRS analysis, the single plant that achieved the
lowest energy unit costs for all of the selected years is Gökçekaya.
On the other hand, Sarıyar and Altınkaya hydro-power plants were
efficient in all years but 2007 (Fig. 7).
According to the VRS analysis results, Borçka, Gökçekaya,
Çatalan, Sarıyar and Gezende hydro plants were efficient during all
the selected years (Fig. 8).
Ataturk, Keban and Karakaya hydro plants which possess quite
large installed capacities in comparison to the remaining ones
exhibited significantly poor efficiency scores with respect to energy
costs, although they turned out to be efficient in terms of genera-
tion. The results of this analysis should be evaluated by relevant
hydro power authorities so that these plants can be pulled back into
efficiency status by taking the necessary measures, which would
positively contribute towards efficient utilization of Turkey’s
primary energy sources.
According to the CRS analysis results of Model 2 (Energy Cost
Efficiency) for 2009, Sarıyar hydro-power plant became a reference
for 7 hydro-power plants. Similarly, according to the VRS analysis
results of Model 2, Gezende, Sarıyar, Çatalan hydro-power plants
became references for 4, 3 and 1 hydro-power plants, respectively.
The required resemblance (weight) percentages for the power
plants with respect to specific reference hydro-power plants is
given for each hydro-power plant in the references column in
Table 5 and Table 6.
Also, the reference or corner points of the plant combination
(with positive weights) onto which the power plants were pro-
jected were identified (Table 5 and Table 6). In this context, the
peers of Atatürk are Sarıyar (with a weight of 0.9622) and Gezende
(with a weight of 0.0378) as per VRS model. These are the reference
points with efficient performances that are used to evaluate
a hydro-power plant’s performance since their weighted mix of
inputs and outputs are equivalent to that of the inefficient plant
under evaluation. The peers can serve for a policymaker as
benchmarks to be used for potential improvement of the hydro-
power plant’s performance especially in terms of its poor record
with respect to input/output ratio. The results of CRS analysis in
Table 5 can be interpreted in a similar way.
3.2. Results of window analysis
3.2.1. Findings on hydro-power plants’ production efficiencies
(Model 1)
The factors underlying the positive and negative influences on
the efficiency scores of HPPs should be investigated through an
analysis of variation in the efficiency scores through several years.

Table 4
Number of benchmarking of efficient plants and peer names and weight values for
inefficient plants according to the VRS analysis results of Model 1 for 2009.

Hydro power Numbers on the right indicate the references for efficient
plants plants (in cases with dark background colors); and the
peer names and weight values for inefficient plants
which are indicated by a white background

Atatürk 0
Keban 1
Karakaya 0
Altinkaya 0
Hasan Ugurlu 0
Borçka 0
Gökçekaya 0
Çatalan 0
Sariyar Keban (0.0002) Gezende (0.9998)
Gezende 1 Fig. 8. VRS efficiencies of the power plants for Model 2.
198 A. Sözen et al. / Renewable Energy 46 (2012) 192e202

Table 5 Table 7
Number of benchmarking of efficient plants and peer names and weight values for The output-oriented window analysis and the summary statistics of the HPPs in
inefficient plants according to the CRS analysis results of Model 2 for 2009. accordance with CRS approach.

Hydro power Numbers on the right indicate the references for efficient DMUs 2007 2008 2009 Mean Standard Range
plants plants (in cases with dark background colors); and the deviation
peer names and weight values for inefficient plants which 1 Ataturk 100.00 102.00
are indicated by a white background 100.00 100.05 100.51 0.99 2.00
Atatürk Sariyar (0.9623) 2 Karakaya 100.00 100.00
Keban Sariyar (0.5249) 100.00 104.62 101.16 2.31 4.62
Karakaya Sariyar (0.6279) 3 Keban 100.00 100.11
Altinkaya 0 100.00 114.34 103.61 7.15 14.34
Hasan Ugurlu Sariyar (0.3156) 4 Altınkaya 119.32 162.51
Borçka Sariyar (0.1728) 162.51 274.06 179.60 66.18 154.74
Gökçekaya 0 5 Hugurlu 148.00 138.03
Çatalan Sariyar (0.3090) 138.03 112.62 134.17 15.12 35.38
Sariyar 7 6 Borçka 243.36 120.57
Gezende Sariyar (0.4585) 148.44 119.61 157.99 58.46 123.75
7 Gökçekaya 150.36 152.99
152.99 152.48 152.21 1.25 2.63
8 Çatalan 346.80 177.29
The variations in the efficiency levels of HPPs from 2007 to 2008 218.27 100.48 210.71 103.03 246.32
and from 2008 to 2009 were determined by Window analysis. 9 Sarıyar 206.93 182.26
In Table 7, changes in the output-oriented generation efficiency 182.26 193.12 191.14 11.70 24.67
10 Gezende 489.14 167.80
in accordance to CRS approach by year are presented. Two different
167.80 125.46 237.55 168.91 363.68
techniques could be attended in the evaluation of these tables, Mean 200.39 143.69 139.68 156.87 General General
namely row view and column view. According to row view, Atatürk, std. Dev. range
Karakaya and Keban were all efficient in 2007 despite suffering 75.98 389.14
a drop in efficiency during the following years (100.05, 104.62 and
114.34 in 2009, respectively). The mean annual performance scores for the plants by year
The performances of Altınkaya and Gökçekaya plants are were 200.39, 143.69 and 139.68, with a universal mean of 156.87. In
trending towards deterioration. For instance, the efficiency scores general, the plants would become fully efficient if they were to
of Altınkaya during the years of observations were 119.32, 162.51, collectively boost their output by 56.87%.
162.51 and 274.06. In Table 8, the output-oriented generation efficiency by year in
A rising trend in the performances of Çatalan, Sarıyar and accordance to VRS approach is presented. According to row view,
Gezende plants are observed. For instance, the efficiency scores of Ataturk, Karakaya, Keban, Altınkaya and Gezende were BCC effi-
Gezende plant consistently decreased towards the perfect effi- urlu and Borçka plants were inefficient
cient in all periods. Hasan Ug
ciency threshold of 100% (Scores: 489.14, 167.80, 167.80 and in the first period, but their scores rose in the last period and thus
125.46). the plants earned efficiency status. Although fluctuations were
According to row view, the highest performance belongs to observed in Gökçekaya and Çatalan, they also became efficient in
Ataturk with 100.51, whereas the lowest performance is observed the final period of observation.
for Gezende with 237.55. Accordingly, perfect efficiency can be Sarıyar plant also followed a volatile path before accomplishing
achieved by Atatürk plant through boosting its output by merely efficiency, only to revert back to a lower performance in the final
0.51%, while Gezende must accomplish a rise of 137.55% to attain period.
efficiency.
Table 8
According to column view, the lowest standard deviation of
The output-oriented window analysis and the summary statistics of the HPPs in
yearly efficiency figures belongs to Atatürk plant at 0.99 units, accordance with VRS approach.
while the highest belongs to Gezende plant at 168.92 units. The
DMUs 2007 2008 2009 Mean Standard Range
mean standard deviation is 75.98 units. The range of annual
deviation
performances was lowest for Ataturk plant with 2 units, while the
1 Ataturk 100.00 100.00
highest range in the case of a single plant was 363.68 units. The 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00
range of all efficiency figures was 389.14 units. 2 Karakaya 100.00 100.00
100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00
3 Keban 100.00 100.00
Table 6 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00
Number of benchmarking of efficient plants and peer names and weight values for 4 Altınkaya 100.00 100.00
inefficient plants according to the VRS analysis results of Model 2 for 2009. 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00
5 Hugurlu 132.27 127.33
Hydro power Numbers on the right indicate the references for efficient 127.33 100.00 121.73 14.67 32.27
plants plants (in cases with dark background colors); and the 6 Borçka 169.56 108.38
peer names and weight values for inefficient plants 111.32 100.00 122.32 31.86 69.56
which are indicated by a white background 7 Gökçekaya 100.00 104.83
Atatürk Sariyar (0.9622) Gezende (0.0378) 100.00 100.00 101.21 2.42 4.83
Keban Sariyar (0.1768) Gezende (0.8232) 8 Çatalan 108.92 100.00
Karakaya Sariyar (0.4081) Gezende (0.5919) 101.63 100.00 102.64 4.26 8.92
Altinkaya 0 9 Sarıyar 119.26 100.00
Hasan Ugurlu Çatalan (0.9313) Gezende (0.0687) 100.00 153.61 118.22 25.28 53.74
Borçka 0 10 Gezende 100.00 100.00
Gökçekaya 0 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00
Çatalan 1 Mean 113.00 104.04 105.36 106.61 General General
Sariyar 3 std. Dev. range
Gezende 4 15.34 69.56
 A. Sözen et al. / Renewable Energy 46 (2012) 192e202 199

According to column view, the plants demonstrating poor
performances in the first period increased their efficiencies in the
following two periods. The periodical means are 113.00, 104.04 and
105.36, respectively.
The universal mean is 106.61, while the poorest intra-period
mean for any single plant is observed in Borçka with 122.32. The
standard deviation and range in Atatürk, Karakaya and Keban,
Altınkaya and Gezende plants are all zero. The highest deviation
belongs to Sarıyar with 25.28, whereas the highest range is observed
in Borçka at 69.56. The universal standard deviation and range of the
entire set of observations are 15.34 and 69.56, respectively.
3.2.2. Findings on hydro-power plants’ energy cost efficiencies
(Model 2)
102 for its performances in years 2007 and 2008, respectively.
The second row of data for each power plant is the result of
analyzing the second window of 10 DMUs which ensues from dis-
carding year 2007 data and appending the year 2009 data instead.
Finally we augment this information by the statistical
measurements noted on the right side of Table 9. Here the mean
values are used as representative measures obtained from the 4
values for each DMU and matched against its standard deviation.
Range statistics might also be used for matching purposes. Other
summary statistics and further decompositions may also be used as
well, but a good deal of information is supplied in any case with the
aforementioned statistical measures.
The “column view” of the table results enable us to examine the
stability of results across the different data sets that occur with
these removal and replacement procedures. Alternatively, “Row
view” makes it possible to determine trends and/or observed
behavior within the same data set. Thus the column view for Ata-
türk power plant exhibits stability and the row view shows steady
behavior in parallel to the level of improvement over 2007.
Table 9 summarizes the window outputs of input-oriented CRS
efficiency analysis.
According to row view, Atatürk, Karakaya, Keban and Altınkaya
plants display steadily increasing levels of performance.
Altınkaya and Sarıyar are both efficient in view of the final two
years’ data (efficiency scores of 100% for years 2008 and 2009).
Hasan Ug urlu, Borçka, Gökçekaya, Çatalan and Sarıyar plants
displayed a drop in performance in 2008, but they realized
increasing performances in the following period.
Gezende plant is efficient in the first period (efficiency score of
100% in %100), but its efficient status was not preserved in the
ensuing periods.
According to the column view, the overall performances of the
HPPs are inadequate despite exhibiting a steadily rising trend. The
general mean performance is 42.69%.
The lowest mean performance belongs to Atatürk HPP with
3.11%. The highest mean performance was displayed by Gökçekaya
at 95.86%.
The smallest standard deviation belongs to Karakaya with 2.60
units, indicating a homogenous performance history, and the
highest deviation was displayed by Altınkaya with 47.78 units. The
universal standard deviation of the set of observations was 39.64
units.
The smallest range in performance scores is belongs to Karakaya
plant with 5.39 units, whereas the widest range was observed in
Altınkaya plant with 79.12. The range of the entire set of perfor-
mance scores is 98.77.
Table 10 summarizes the window outputs of the input-oriented
VRS efficiency analysis. According to row view, Ataturk, Karakaya
and Keban displayed increasingly higher performances. Altınkaya
achieved full efficiency in 2008, but deteriorated in 2009. The range
of performance scores is lowest for Çatalan and Gezende.
According to column view, the mean performance scores of the
plants inadequate as a whole despite presenting a steadily rising
trend. The overall mean performance score is 58.46%.
Atatürk plant attained the lowest mean performance with 0.76%,
while Altınkaya had the highest mean performance at 35.90%.
The general standard deviation and the general range of the
observations are 41.83 units and 96.62 units, respectively.
The box blots of output-oriented performance scores as per
Model 1 using CRS and VRS approaches are given in Fig. 9 and
Fig. 10 respectively.
As seen in the figure, the CRS performance scores of Model 1 are
more volatile compared to VRS performance scores. The CRS scores
correspond to global maximum, while VRS corresponds to local

Table 9 Table 10
The window analysis and the summary of statistics for the HPPs in accordance with The window analysis and the summary of statistics for the HPPs in accordance with
CRS approach. VRS approach.

DMUs 2007 2008 2009 Mean Standard Range DMUs 2007 2008 2009 Mean Standard Range
deviation deviation
1 Ataturk 1.23 1.48 1 Ataturk 3.76 3.38 5.12
2.86 6.85 3.11 2.64 5.62 4.36 4.16 0.76 1.74
2 Karakaya 1.42 1.55 2 Karakaya 7.14 4.44 8.21
3.00 6.81 3.20 2.60 5.39 5.68 6.37 1.65 3.77
3 Keban 1.60 1.98 3 Keban 7.09 5.22 8.16
3.82 7.87 3.82 3.01 6.27 6.70 6.79 1.22 2.94
4 Altınkaya 20.88 88.61 4 Altınkaya 30.69 100.00 47.12
100.00 100.00 77.37 47.78 79.12 100.00 69.45 35.90 69.31
5 Hugurlu 12.16 8.28 5 Hugurlu 26.39 28.08 35.16
15.99 18.80 13.81 7.34 10.52 36.31 31.49 4.98 9.92
6 Borçka 17.25 10.58 6 Borçka 100.00 78.46 100.00 93.47
20.43 33.27 20.38 12.29 22.69 95.42 10.24 21.54
7 Gökçekaya 100.00 83.44 7 Gökçekaya 100.00 80.34 49.12 82.37 24.02 50.88
100.00 100.00 95.86 43.46 16.56 100.00
8 Çatalan 43.79 27.53 8 Çatalan 100.00 100.00 95.03 98.76 2.48 4.97
53.16 49.95 43.61 21.86 25.63 100.00
9 Sarıyar 95.64 78.97 9 Sarıyar 100.00 100.00 73.53 93.38 13.23 26.47
100.00 100.00 93.65 42.77 21.03 100.00
10 Gezen 100.00 41.97 10 Gezen 100.00 100.00 93.40 98.35 3.30 6.60
81.03 65.21 72.05 38.62 58.03 100.00
Mean 39.40 41.23 48.88 42.69 General General Mean 57.51 62.42 51.49 58.46 General General
std. Dev. range std. range
39.64 98.77 Dev.41.83 96.62
200 A. Sözen et al. / Renewable Energy 46 (2012) 192e202

Fig. 9. The output-oriented efficiency scores determined by Model 1 with CRS approach.

maximum. Therefore, it is appropriate to reckon CRS scores as more
significant. When Model 1 is evaluated with respect to variations in
performance, Gezen, Çatalan, Altınkaya and Borçka draw attention,
in increasing order of size. A heterogeneous set of variations in
performance as well as a wide performance range are not positive
indicators for an HPP, as they underscore the unstable generation
structure of the particular plant.
The performance score equaling to 100% as per both models
demonstrate that the particular plant possesses the Most Produc-
tive Scale Size; which depicts the best combination in terms of
converting the inputs to outputs. For Model 1, Atatürk and Karakaya
plants are in the vicinity of this point. Furthermore, skewness of
performance may also be inferred from the graph. Accordingly,
Gezen, Çatalan, Altınkaya and Borçka plants exhibit positive
skewness, which ultimately means that in terms of performance,
these plants posted poorer scores (with respect to output-oriented
analysis) in comparison to the general mean level of performance.
A more stable trend is observed compared to Model 1 VRS
results, as the range of performance scores is lower. This is a posi-
tive and significant outcome.
In Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 box plots for the input-oriented performance
scores as per Model 2 using CRS and VRS approaches are presented
respectively. The performances of Atatürk, Karakaya and Keban
plants are quite poor according to both CRS and VRS models. Altın-
kaya displayed the most volatile performance. The highest mean
performance as well the lowest performance range (as per CRS) is
Gökçekaya. In light of VRS solutions, the performances of Çatalan and
Gezen plants are high in addition to possessing a narrow range.
Hence, these two plants are in the best position as per Model 2 VRS.
The analyzed plants performed poorly in Model 2 compared to
how they did in Model 1. Additionally, they had exhibited a wider
range of performance scores in Model 2. It could be emphasized
once again that a narrower range of performance scores is a more
desirable situation with respect to energy generation practices.

Fig. 10. The output-oriented efficiency scores determined by Model 1 with VRS approach.
 A. Sözen et al. / Renewable Energy 46 (2012) 192e202 201

Fig. 11. The input-oriented efficiency scores determined by Model 2 with CRS approach.

Fig. 12. The input-oriented efficiency scores determined by Model 2 with VRS approach.

4. Conclusions production costs of the hydro-power plants indicated that the

In this study, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) was applied on
various hydro-power plants with multiple inputs and outputs
located in Turkey in order to assess their relative performances.
Efficiency analyses of eight hydro-power plants were conducted
with the DEA technique and Window Analysis.
All analyzed hydro-power plants had fully accessible past
records, were located in Turkey and used for electricity generation
purposes. In the analysis, scale efficiency values were obtained by
the use of classical DEA model (CCR model) developed by Charnes
et al. (1978) as well as the BCC models. Two different efficiency
assessment models were developed by varying the input and
output variables of the hydro-power plants. Therefore, the hydro-
power plants’ production performances (Model 1) and costs per
unit kWh electricity generated (Model 2) were analyzed relatively.
According to the obtained results, Gökçekaya hydro-power
plant demonstrated the best performance among all hydro-power
plants in both models. Moreover, analyses determining the unit
energy efficiency characteristics of the hydro-power plants should
be evaluated. Redundancies and deficiencies in the level of selected
input and output variables, respectively, of the poorly performing
hydro-power plants have to be handled accordingly. Consequently,
it is possible to reduce the production costs per unit energy.
In this study, basic explanatory information supported with
solid factual data were presented to the policy makers working on
this issue. In the 21st century, in which the world evolves rapidly,
efficient utilization of hydro-power plants is of vital importance for
meeting the basic needs of the economy and for a more prosperous
country. In this context, this study revealed the operating condi-
tions of Turkey’s forthcoming hydro-power plants.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Department of Scientific Research
Project at Gazi University (Project No: 41/2010-1) for their financial
support.
202 A. Sözen et al. / Renewable Energy 46 (2012) 192e202

References [14] Ramakrishnan R. A multi-factor efficiency perspective to the relationships

among world GDP, energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 2006;73:483e94.
[1] Key world energy Statistic. International Energy Agency; 2009.
[15] Lozano S, Gutierrez E. Non-parametric frontier approach to modeling the
[2] Annual Report. Turkey: Electricity Generation Company; 2008.
_ Hydropower in Turkey for a clean and sustainable energy future. relationships among population, GDP, energy consumption and CO2 emis-
[3] Yüksel I.
sions. Ecological Economics 2008;66:687e99.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review 2008;12:1622e40. _ Comparison of Turkey’s performance of Greenhouse gas
[16] Sözen A, Alp I.
[4] Altınbilek D. The role of dams in development. Water Resource 2002;18:9e24.
emissions and Local/Regional Pollutants with EU Countries. Energy Policy
[5] Kaygusuz K. Renewable and sustainable energy use in Turkey: a review.
2009;37(12):5007e18.
Renew Sustainable Energy Review 2002;6:339e66. _ Özdemir A. Assessment of operational and environmental
[17] Sözen A, Alp I,
[6] Özturk R, Kıncay O. Potential of hydroelectric energy. Energy Sources 2004;26:
performance of thermal power plants in turkey by using data envelopment
1141e56.
_ Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP) for irrigation and hydroelectric analysis. Energy Policy 2010;38(10):6194e203.
[7] Yüksel I.
[18] Charnes A, Cooper W, Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making
power in Turkey. Energy Explor Exploit 2006;24(4e5):361e70.
units. European Journal of Operational Research 1978;2:429e44.
[8] MENR. Energy report of Turkey in 2004, Ankara, Turkey. Ministry of energy
[19] Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW. Some models for estimating technical and
and natural resources, www.enerji.gov.trS; 2005 [accessed 10.09.09].
scale inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science 1984;
[9] Zhou P, Ang BW, Poh KL. A survey of data envelopment analysis in energy and
30(9):1078e92.
environmental studies. European Journal of Operational Research 2008;189:1e18.
[20] Charnes A, Cooper WW, Golany B, Learner DB, Phillips FY, Rousseau JJ.
[10] Emrouznejad A, Parker BR, Tavares G. Evaluation of research in efficiency and
A multiperiod analysis of market segments and brand efficiency in the
productivity: a survey and analysis of the first 30 years of scholarly literature
competitive carbonated beverage industry. In: Charnes A, Cooper WW,
in DEA. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 2008;42(3):151e7.
Lewin Arie Y, Seiford Lavrence M, editors. Data envelopment analysis: theory,
[11] Ray SC. Data envelopment analysis: theory and techniques for economics and
methodology and applications, Massachusetts, USA; 2000.
operations research. Cambridge University Press; 2004.
[21] Lewin AY, Morey RC. Measuring the relative efficiency and output potential of
[12] Cook WD, Seiford L m. data envelopment analysis (dea) e thirty years on.
public Sector organizations: an application of data development analysis.
European Journal of Operational Research 2009;192:1e10.
International Journal of Policy Analysis and Information Systems 1981;5(4):
[13] Honma S, Hu J. Total-factor energy effciency of regions in Japan. Energy Policy
267e85.
2008;36:821e33.