The study evaluates the efficiency of 64 public sector thermal power plants using the slack-based model (SBM), a subset of data envelopment analysis (DEA) designed to measure technical efficiency (TE) along with undesired output, for the period 2017–2018 to 2021–2022. Results reveal that the desired output can be increased by 42% with the same inputs. Despite the general mean TE, there has been a declining trend over time, with about half of power plants having efficiency rates below 50% efficiency margin, and hence signifying increased fuel or operation costs. This conclusion is supported by the findings of the Tobit regression that indicate that the fuel inputs were negative determinants of TE. Moreover, the analysis shows that there can be a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 3%, thus giving promising signs to environmental sustainability. The inferences also reveal that thermal power plants managed under the central sector show better performance in both technical and environmental efficiency. The conclusions highlight a significant opportunity to increase electricity generation output relative to inputs through improved technical processes, maintenance, or technological upgrades. The Tobit regression results reveal that plant load factors in central sector plants and facilities are significant positive determinants of TE, but plant size and fuel inputs are negative contributors to the TE score. The research has emphasized the urgent situation to enrich the fuel efficiency, coal quality, technology, and plant utilization, as well as operations efficiencies, to increase the suitability of the Indian power sector.
AdogheA. U., Adeyemi-KayodeT. M., OguntosinV., & AmahiaI. I. (2023). Performance evaluation of the prospects and challenges of effective power generation and distribution in Nigeria. Heliyon, 9, e14416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14416
2.
AndersenP., & PetersenN. C. (1993). A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 39(10), 1261–1264. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.39.10.1261
3.
ApergisN., AyeG., BarrosC., GuptaR., & WankeP. (2015). Energy efficiency of selected OECD countries: A slacks-based model with undesirable outputs. Energy Economics, 51, 45–53.
4.
AzadehA., GhaderiF., AnvariM., IzadbakhshH., & DehghanS. (2007). Performance assessment and optimization of thermal power plants by DEA BCC and multivariate analysis. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 66(10), 860–872.
5.
BainJ. S. (1956). Barriers to new competition: Their character and consequences in manufacturing industries. Harvard University Press.
6.
BalachandraP., RavindranathD., & RavindranathN. H. (2010). Energy efficiency in India: Assessing the policy regimes and their impacts. Energy Policy, 38(11), 6428–6438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.013
7.
BazmiA. A., & ZahediG. (2011). Sustainable energy systems: Role of optimization modeling techniques in power generation and supply—A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(8), 3480–3500. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2011.05.003
8.
BeheraS. K., DashA. P., & FarooquieJ. A. (2010). Performance analysis of coal-fired power plants in India. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (pp. 757–762). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2694154
9.
BelgarouiM., EuchiJ., & KammounO. (2025). Enhancing the efficiency and sustainability of Tunisia’s thermal power plants: A data envelopment analysis with policy insights. Next Research, 2(3), 100546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexres.2025.100546
10.
BenhelalE., ZahediG., ShamsaeiE., & BahadoriA. (2013). Global strategies and potentials to curb CO₂ emissions in cement industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 51, 142–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.049
11.
BiG. B., SongW., ZhouP., & LiangL. (2014). Does environmental regulation affect energy efficiency in China’s thermal power generation? Empirical evidence from a slacks-based DEA model. Energy Policy, 66, 537–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.enpol.2013.10.056
12.
Bureau of Energy Efficiency. (2024). India energy scenario for the year 2023–24. Retrieved, 20February2026, from https://www.beeindia.gov.in
13.
CastelluccioS., OrlandellaI., FioreS., & ComoglioC. (2025). Evaluating the environmental performances of thermal power plants: A study on EMAS registered Italian sites. Journal of Cleaner Production, 490, 144677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.144677
14.
Central Electricity Authority. (2023). All India electricity statistics: General review 2023. Ministry of Power, Government of India. Retrieved, 20February2026, from https://cea.nic.in/?lang=en
15.
Central Electricity Authority. (2024). CO₂ baseline database for the Indian power sector: User guide. Ministry of Power, Government of India. Retrieved, 20February2026, from https://cea.nic.in/User_Guide_Version_20.0./?lang=en
16.
ChandraA. (2025, January19). What is energy efficiency? Here are the benefits & examples. Retrieved, 20February2026, from https://chandra-asri.com/en/blog/energy-efficiency
17.
ChappinE. J. L., & DijkemaG. P. J. (2009). On the impact of CO₂ emission trading on power generation emissions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(3), 358–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.08.004
18.
CharnesA., CooperW. W., & RhodesE. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
19.
ChenT.-Y., YehT.-L., & LeeY.-T. (2013). Comparison of power plants efficiency among 73 countries. Journal of Energy, 2013, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/916413
20.
CookW. D., & ZhuJ. (2007). Classifying inputs and outputs in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 180(2), 692–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.03.048
21.
DasA., & SinghR. (2023). Technological innovations and their role in enhancing the efficiency of coal-fired power plants in India. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 160, 112265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112265
22.
FarrellM. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General), 120(3), 253–290.
23.
FriedH. O., LovellC. A. K., & SchmidtS. S. (2008). The measurement of productive efficiency and productivity growth. Oxford University Press.
24.
GrahamM. (2004). Environmental efficiency: Meaning and measurement and application to Australian dairy farms [Paper presentation]. 48th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society (AARES). https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.58450
25.
GuoY., LiuW., TianJ., HeR., & ChenL. (2017). Eco-efficiency assessment of coal-fired combined heat and power plants in Chinese eco-industrial parks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 963–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.059
26.
GuptaJ. (2023). Impacts of regulatory framework on the performance of thermal power plants in India. Journal of Cleaner Production, 386, 132032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132032
27.
HuJ. L., & WangS. C. (2006). Total-factor energy efficiency of regions in China. Energy Policy, 34(17), 3206–3217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.06.015
28.
JainS., ThakurT., & ShandilyaA. (2010). Cost benchmarking of generation utilities using DEA: A case study of India. Technology and Investment, 1(4), 229–234. https://doi.org/10.4236/ti.2010.14028
29.
JavaheriA., & OstadzadR. (2014). Estimating efficiency of thermal and hydroelectric power plants in Iranian provinces. Iranian Journal of Economic Studies, 3(2), 19–42.
30.
JindalA., & NilakantanR. (2021). Falling efficiency levels of Indian coal-fired power plants: A slacks-based analysis. Energy Economics, 93, 105022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.105022
31.
KhalidS., SongJ., RaoufI., & KimH. S. (2023). Advances in fault detection and diagnosis for thermal power plants: A review of intelligent techniques. Mathematics, 11, 1767. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11081767
32.
KumarR., SharmaA. K., & TewariP. C. (2015). Cost analysis of a coal-fired power plant using the NPV method. Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 11(4), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-015-0116-8
33.
LamP. L., & ShiuA. (2001). A data envelopment analysis of the efficiency of China’s thermal power generation. Utilities Policy, 10(2), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-1787(02)00036-X
34.
LiuC. H., LinS. J., & LewisC. (2010). Evaluation of thermal power plant operational performance in Taiwan by data envelopment analysis. Energy Policy, 38(2), 1049–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.057
35.
MadanS., & SinghS. (2025). Efficiency and productivity of public sector thermal power generation in India. Thailand and the World Economy, 43(2), 1–21. https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/TER/article/view/263443
36.
MasonE. S. (1939). Price and production policies of large-scale enterprise. The American Economic Review, 29(1), 61–74.
37.
MickaealA. (2024, January8). The wider benefits of built environment energy efficiency. Retrieved, 20February2026, from https://www.cim.io/blog/the-wider-benefits-of-built-environment-energy-efficiency
38.
MittalM. L., SharmaC., & SinghR. (2012). Estimates of emissions from coal-fired thermal power plants in India. Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:27917525
39.
MohsinM., HanifI., Taghizadeh-HesaryF., AbbasQ., & IqbalW. (2021). Nexus between energy efficiency and electricity reforms: A DEA-based way forward for clean power development. Energy Policy, 149, 112052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112052
40.
MorS. (2017a). Climate change and land revenue: Evidences from Indian agriculture. Disaster Advances, 10(12), 21–27.
41.
MorS. (2017b). Impacts of climate variability on wheat production in India. Disaster Advances, 10(7), 12–18.
42.
MorS., AnejaR., & MadanS. (2025). Climate management and the Paris Agreement: A predictive evaluation. Thailand and the World Economy, 43(1), 1–18. https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/TER/article/view/263144
43.
MorS., AnejaR., MadanS., & GhimireM. (2024). Kyoto protocol and Paris agreement: Transition from bindings to pledges—A review. Millennial Asia, 15(4), 691–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/09763996221141546
44.
MorS., & GhimireM. (2022). Transparency and nationally determined contributions: A review of the Paris Agreement. Interdisciplinary Journal of Economics and Business Law, 11(2), 106–119.
45.
MorS., MadanS., & PrasadK. D. (2021). Artificial intelligence and carbon footprints: Roadmap for Indian agriculture. Strategic Change, 30(3), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2409
46.
MurtyS., & NagpalR. (2019). Measuring output-based technical efficiency of Indian coal-based thermal power plants. Indian Growth and Development Review, 13(1), 175–206. https://doi.org/10.1108/IGDR-05-2018-0058
47.
NejatP., JomehzadehF., TaheriM. M., GohariM., & MuhdM. Z. (2015). A global review of energy consumption, CO₂ emissions and policy in the residential sector (with an overview of the top ten CO₂ emitting countries). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 43, 843–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.066
48.
Pérez-ReyesR., & TovarB. (2021). Peruvian electrical distribution firms’ efficiency revisited: A two-stage data envelopment analysis. Sustainability, 13(18), Article 10066. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810066
49.
RahmanA. S. A., AliS. A. S., IsaM. R., AliF., KamaruddinD., & BaharuddinM. H. (2023). Performance assessment of Malaysian fossil fuel power plants: A data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach. International Journal of Renewable Energy Development, 12(2), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.14710/IJRED.2023.48487
50.
ReinhardS., LovellC. A. K., & ThijssenG. (2002). Analysis of environmental efficiency variation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(4), 1054–1065.
51.
SahooN. R., MohapatraP. K. J., SahooB. K., & MahantyB. (2017). Rationality of energy efficiency improvement targets under the PAT scheme in India—A case of thermal power plants. Energy Economics, 66, 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.06.004
52.
SahuP., & KumarR. (2022). Operational efficiency of coal-fired power plants in India. Energy Reports, 8, 1045–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.03.004
53.
SaricaK., & OrI. (2007). Efficiency assessment of Turkish power plants using data envelopment analysis. Energy, 32(8), 1484–1499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.10.016
54.
SchmidtP., & LovellC. A. K. (1979). Estimating technical and allocative efficiency production with a switching regression. Journal of Econometrics, 9(3), 343–356.
55.
SeeK. F., & CoelliT. (2012). An analysis of factors that influence the technical efficiency of Malaysian thermal power plants. Energy Economics, 34(3), 677–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.09.005
56.
ShanmugamK. R., & KulshreshthaP. (2005). Efficiency analysis of coal-based thermal power generation in India during post-reform era. International Journal of Global Energy Issues, 23(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGEI.2005.006408
57.
ShearerC., FofrichR., & DavisS. J. (2017). Future CO₂ emissions and electricity generation from proposed coal-fired power plants in India. Earth’s Future, 5(4), 408–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000542
58.
ShrivastavaN., SharmaS., & ChauhanK. (2012). Efficiency assessment and benchmarking of thermal power plants in India. Energy Policy, 40, 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.020
59.
SinghS. (2006). The Kyoto Protocol: Toothless and obsolete. Panjab University Research Journal (Arts), 10, 33–42.
60.
SinghS. K., BajpaiV. K., & GargT. K. (2013). Measuring productivity change in Indian coal-fired electricity generation: 2003–2010. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 7(1), 46–64.
61.
ThakurT., DeshmukhS. G., & KaushikS. C. (2006). Efficiency evaluation of the state-owned electric utilities in India. Energy Policy, 34(17), 2788–2804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.03.022
62.
ToneK. (2001). A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 130, 498–509.
63.
ToneK. (2003). Dealing with undesirable outputs in DEA: A slacks-based measure (SBM) approach. (GRIPS Research Report Series: I-2003-0005). National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies. https://grips.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/500/files/I-2003-0005.pdf
64.
VacchiM., SiligardiC., DemariaF., Cedillo-GonzálezE. I., González-SánchezR., & Settembre-BlundoD. (2021). Technological sustainability or sustainable technology? A multidimensional vision of sustainability in manufacturing. Sustainability, 13(17), 9942. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179942
65.
VaninskyA. (2006). Efficiency of electric power generation in the United States: Analysis and forecast based on data envelopment analysis. Energy Economics, 28(3), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2006.02.007
66.
WangK., WeiY.-M., & HuangZ. (2017). Environmental efficiency and abatement efficiency measurements of China’s thermal power industry: A data envelopment analysis–based materials balance approach. Energy, 108(16), 907–918.
67.
WeiW., DingS., ZhengS., MaJ., NiuT., & LiJ. (2021). Environmental efficiency evaluation of China’s power industry based on the two-stage network slack-based measure model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(23), 12650. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312650
68.
XiaoxiC. (2025). Analysis of carbon emission reduction efficiency of China’s thermal power plants from a multidimensional perspective. Energy Reports, 14, 624–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2025.06.037
69.
XieX., & LiK. (2022). Measuring total-factor energy–environment efficiency, saving and carbon emission reduction potential in China’s food industry: Based on a meta-frontier slacks-based measure model. Food and Energy Security, 11(1), e324. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.324
70.
YadavV. K., KumarN., GhoshS., & SinghK. (2014). Indian thermal power plant challenges and remedies via application of modified data envelopment analysis. International Transactions in Operational Research, 21(6), 931–951. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12112
71.
YanJ., WangS., WangS., & LiR. (2021). Determinants of technical inefficiency in China’s coal-fired power plants and policy recommendations for CO₂ mitigation. Applied Energy, 283, 116244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116244
