Performance Evaluation of European Power Systems

  • Mário CoutoEmail author
  • Ana Camanho
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 278)


Electric power systems are facing significant challenges regarding their organization and structure. Energy infrastructures are crucial to ensure a transition to low-carbon societies, contributing to sustainable development. This paper uses Data Envelopment Analysis to compare the performance of the power systems in 16 European countries using data available to the public. Three perspectives were considered, focusing on technical aspects affecting quality of service, network costs and environmental impact. It is proposed a new formulation of the DEA model that estimates a composite indicator (CI) aggregating individual indicators which should be minimized. The benchmarking results can give insights to electric operators, regulators and decision-makers on the strengths and weakness of national power systems and disclose the potential for performance improvements. Based on the outcomes from the CI model, Austria, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy and Netherlands are identified as the benchmarks for the power systems in the Europe. The discussion of the results is intended to raise public awareness on the performance of the European power systems and contribute to the definition of public policies for the promotion of continuous improvement.


Electric power systems Data envelopment analysis Composite indicators International benchmarking 


  1. 1.
    European Commission, Market Observatory for Energy, Quarterly Report on Electricity Markets (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Charun, R., Morande, F., Raineri, B.R.: (De)regulation and competition: the electric industry in Chile, 1st edn. in English. ILADES, Santiago, Chile (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saraiva, J.T.: Estimation of the congestion cost of the Portuguese national transmission network evolution from 1998 to 2008. In: 2012 9th International Conference on the European Energy Market, pp. 1–7, Florence (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saraiva, J.T., da Silva, J.P., Ponce de Leo, M.T.: Evaluation of the marginal based remuneration - a case study using the Portuguese transmission network. In: 2001 IEEE Power Tech Proceedings, pp. 6, Porto (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elkington, J.: Cannibals with Forks. The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, 1st edn. Capstone Publishing Limited, Oxford (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elkington, J.: Towards the sustainable corporation: win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. Calif. Manag. Rev. 36(2), 90–101 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    UNUnited Nations, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Technical Report 1, United Nations, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farsi, M., Filippini, M.: Regulation and measuring cost-efficiency with panel data models: application to electricity distribution utilities. Rev. Ind. Organ. 25, 119 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rudnick, H., Donoso, J.A.: Integration of price cap and yardstick competition schemes in electrical distribution regulation. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 15, 1428–1433 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chengcheng, L., Yanling, W., Ju, G.: Research on the regulation of power transmission and distribution based on DEA, In: 2008 IEEE International Conference on Automation and Logistics, pp. 141–146, Qingdao (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simab, M., Alvehag, K., Soder, L., Haghifam, M.R.: Designing reward and penalty scheme in performance based regulation for electric distribution companies. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 6(9), 893–901 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheng, X., BjØrndal, E., BjØrndal, M.: Cost efficiency analysis based on the DEA and StoNED models: case of Norwegian electricity distribution companies. In: 11th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM14), pp. 1–6, Krakow (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tascheret, C., Rattá, G., Andreoni, A.M.: Methodology to determine the optimal electricity distribution tariff using benchmarking techniques. In: 13th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM), pp. 1–5, Porto (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simab, M., Haghifam, M.R.: DEA efficiency for the benchmarking of Iranian electric distribution utilities. In: 20th International Conference and Exhibition on Electricity Distribution - Part 1, CIRED 2009, pp. 1–4, Prague (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roman, J., Gomez, T., Mofioz, A., Peco, J.: Regulation of distribution network business. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 14(2), 662–669 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Recordon, E., Rudnick, H.: Distribution access pricing: application of OFTEL rule to a yardstick competition scheme. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 17(4), 1001–1007 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Avalos-Gonzalez, J.A., Rico-Melgoza, J.J., Madrigal, M., Madrigal, M.: Total quality management indicators and DEA for benchmarking the Mexican electrical industry. In: 2006 IEEE International Engineering Management Conference, pp. 388–392, Bahia (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cambini, C., Fumagalli, E., Croce, A.: Output-based incentive regulation: benchmarking with quality of supply in electricity distribution. In: 2012 9th International Conference on the European Energy Market, pp. 1–8, Florence (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Santos, S.P., Amado, C.A., Rosado, J.R.: Formative evaluation of electricity distribution utilities using data envelopment analysis. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 62(7), 1298–1319 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Agrell, P.J., Bogetoft, P., Grammeltvedt, T.E.: The efficiency of the regulation for horizontal mergers among electricity distribution operators in Norway. In: 12th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM), pp. 1–5, Lisbon (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Agrell, P.J., Bogetoft, P., Tind, J.: DEA and dynamic yardstick competition in scandinavian electricity distribution. J. Product. Anal. 23, 173201 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    CEER, Benchmarking Report 5.2 on the Continuity of Electricity Supply, February 2015.
  23. 23.
    ENTSOE, Power Statistics.
  24. 24.
    Electric power transmission and distribution losses (% output) (2017).
  25. 25.
    European Commission, EUROSTAT, Electricity and heat statistics 2014 (2014).
  26. 26.
    IEEE Guide for Electric Power Distribution Reliability Indices - Redline. IEEE Std 1366-2012 (Revision of IEEE Std 1366-2003) - Redline, pp. 1–92 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    European Commission, Energy Prices and costs in Europe, Brussels (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Koopmans, T.: Analysis of production as an efficient combination of activities. In: Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation, pp. 33–97. Wiley, New York (1951)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cook, W.D., Kress, M.: A data envelopment model for aggregating prefence rankings. Manag. Sci. 36(11), 13021310 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lovell, C.A.K.: Measuring the macroeconomic performance of the taiwanese economy. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 39(1–2), 165–178 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lovell, C.A.K., Pastor, J.T., Turner, J.A.: Measuring macroeconomic performance in the OECD: a comparison of european and noneuropean countries. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 87(3), 507–518 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., Van Puyenbroeck, T.: An introduction to benefitt of the doubt composite indicators. Soc. Indic. Res. 82(1), 111–145 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    CEER- Council of European Energy Regulators, CEER Report on Power Losses (2017)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    IEA-International Energy Agency, Austria-Energy System Overview (2017).
  35. 35.
    IEA-International Energy Agency, Sweden-Energy System Overview (2017).
  36. 36.
    PORDATA, Electricity prices for households and industrial users (2017).

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculdade de EngenhariaUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.INESC TEC, Faculdade de EngenhariaUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations