The bar for a U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed) interest rate hike this week is likely higher than rate futures markets suggest, owing not only to softer-than-expected inflation data and a fresh easing of hostilities between the U.S. and Iran, but also to concerns that markets would interpret a single hike as a sign that more increases are ahead.

Going into the July 28-29 policy meeting, just the second one led by Fed Chair ⁠Kevin Warsh, the U.S. central bank had left its benchmark policy rate unchanged in ⁠the 3.50%-3.75% range since December.

The probability for a hike this week, as reflected in rate futures prices, had been growing on the renewed rise in energy prices and the hawkish intonations of a number of Warsh’s colleagues.

If history is any guide, though, when the Fed hikes or cuts rates after an extended hold, it keeps going in the same direction ​for at least a few meetings, and policymakers may not be quite ready to send that signal.

“They don’t usually do a one-and-done, ​so ⁠it really means … the (policy) committee has to decide whether they’re going to commit to a sequence of rate increases,” said James Bullard, who led the St. Louis Fed from 2008 until 2023 before becoming the dean of the Mitch Daniels School of Business at Purdue University. “I don’t think they’re ready to do that at this meeting.”

Hawks versus doves

At the Fed’s June 16-17 meeting, Warsh’s first as head of the central bank, all 18 of his colleagues supported the decision to leave the target for short-term borrowing costs unchanged, despite a few who, even then, saw the case for a rate hike.

In the weeks since, the hawkish case has lost a little steam. Consumer prices rose 3.5% in June from a year earlier, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported earlier this month, still high but down from 4.2% in May as a U.S.-Iran cease-fire lowered fuel prices.

Trend inflation, estimated by stripping out volatile energy and food prices, also eased, with the core Consumer Price Index measure dropping to 2.6% from 2.9%. The influential head of the New York Fed expressed some conviction earlier this month that the trend would continue.

The labor market, meanwhile, has remained on solid ground. Job growth slowed sharply in June, but the gain of 57,000 in nonfarm payrolls was above what economists estimate is the so-called break-even rate where there are enough jobs generated to keep up with workforce growth. The unemployment rate ticked down ⁠to 4.2%. ⁠Hourly wage growth was 3.5% on a year-over-year basis, suggesting the labor market was not contributing to inflation.

Warsh, though quiet on his own rate-path views, has said he believes productivity growth may allow for faster economic expansion without stronger price pressures.

Still, the underlying reasons prompting half of the Fed policymakers at the June meeting to pencil in a higher policy rate by the end of this year remain intact. Inflation has been running above the Fed’s 2% goal for more than five years, and it reaccelerated in the first half of this year. Oil prices shot upward again this month as the cease-fire in the Middle East war fell apart, rekindling inflation concerns that some economists and Fed policymakers worry are already broadening beyond fuel and grocery prices, particularly as investment in artificial intelligence supercharges demand in some sectors of the economy.

The Fed will announce its policy decision at 2 p.m. EDT (6 p.m. GMT) on Wednesday following the end of a two-day meeting. Most economists say they expect at least one and as many as three dissents from policymakers favoring a rate hike, laying the groundwork for the start of a sequence of rises in borrowing costs ⁠in September unless inflation takes a decided turn for the better before then.

“September remains our base case for the first hike,” analysts at Capital Economics wrote last week. “By then, the Fed should have greater evidence that strong goods price pressures are not fading, despite the easing of tariff effects. Moreover, a September hike is now fully priced into markets, which Warsh has stressed will be an important steer for policy decisions under his chairmanship.”

Some analysts, however, see a case to ​get going now, especially if the new Fed chief is as serious about containing inflation as he has stated. “We doubt Warsh would face widespread opposition if he argued for tightening. The final decision could ​go either way, but we think the Fed is more likely to raise rates by 25 basis points on Wednesday than to stand pat,” analysts at Wrightson ICAP said.

Once Fed hikes, it usually keeps going

An isolated Fed rate hike is rare. The last time the central bank raised rates without delivering another one soon after was in 2015, but it ⁠wasn’t for lack of trying, ‌with policymakers led by then-Fed ‌chief Janet Yellen repeatedly promising “normalization” after years of a near-zero policy rate. It took a year for policymakers to feel the economy ⁠was strong enough to handle more rises in borrowing costs, but eventually they got there.

The one clear exception was in March ‌1997, the only interest rate adjustment of the modern era that was sandwiched by moves in the opposite direction. Transcripts from that meeting show that while then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan felt “the odds are better than 50/50” that the central bank would raise rates again, ​he preferred markets not make that presumption, and took the unusual ⁠step of issuing a statement to announce the move.

The minutes of each subsequent meeting that year did note a “firming” bias, but in the ⁠end inflation never accelerated enough to force the Fed to follow through. Ultimately, the shock of Russia’s debt default and the near-failure of a prominent U.S. hedge fund triggered a series of rate ⁠cuts starting in September 1998.

At this week’s meeting, markets ​are pricing about a one-in-three chance of a hike. Economists say it’s worth looking beyond a single meeting for a read on what’s actually at stake.

“The real discussion is whether the Fed will start a proper hiking cycle, which is typically delivered through at least three hikes, or not hiking at all,” analysts at Bank of America wrote.

The Daily Sabah Newsletter

Keep up to date with what’s happening in Turkey,
it’s region and the world.

SIGN ME UP

You can unsubscribe at any time. By signing up you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Forty years after the Chernobyl disaster spread radiation across Europe and prompted Italy to abandon nuclear power, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government is preparing the ground for its return as the country scrambles to strengthen energy security.

The government is counting on a new generation of Italians who see nuclear power as a source of low-carbon electricity, a tool to help fight climate change and a way to strengthen stable energy supplies amid shocks from the Ukraine and Iran wars.

It’s betting that such support will blunt the opinions of Italians who lived through the 1986 nuclear accident, still view atomic energy through the lens of risk and disaster, and twice rejected nuclear power in national referenda, experts say.

Next week, Parliament is expected to approve government-sponsored legislation establishing a legal framework for next-generation nuclear technologies. The government would then have 12 months to draft implementing decrees covering reactor licensing, safety standards, waste management and siting.

“The duty of the government at this moment is to create the conditions so that those who will eventually decide on installations will be able to do so,” Gilberto Pichetto Fratin, minister for the environment and energy security, told The Associated Press (AP) in an interview ahead of the vote.

Reversal of positions after Ukraine

Italy’s debate comes as several European countries, including France and Poland, expand or pursue nuclear power amid concerns about energy security and climate goals. Unlike them, however, Italy is trying to rebuild an industry voters dismantled decades ago.

Italy was once among Europe’s nuclear pioneers. Four reactors operated until a 1987 referendum effectively ended the country’s nuclear program in the aftermath of Chernobyl. Another attempt to revive nuclear power collapsed after Japan’s Fukushima disaster in 2011, when about 94% of voters opposed plans for new reactors.

As a result, Italy’s shift would mark one of Europe’s most ambitious energy reversals.

Meloni’s government argues that rising electricity demand, climate goals and energy-security concerns following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine justify bringing nuclear power back into Italy’s energy mix.

Pichetto Fratin said electricity demand could increase by at least 30% within about a decade, requiring a broader mix of energy sources than renewables alone.

Rather than reviving the large plants of the past, the government is focusing on small modular reactors, or SMRs, and other advanced technologies that supporters say could be safer, more flexible and faster to build.

“We are talking about the third advanced generation (of nuclear power), much more workable compared to what are the needs, much safer because it is small in size with very short construction times,” Pichetto Fratin said.

“When people ask me for a timeline, I say 2033, 2034, 2035,” he added, referring to when the first next-generation reactors could realistically begin operating.

Nuclear power produces about 10% of the world’s electricity, equivalent to about a quarter of all low-carbon power. Italy’s aim for a nuclear comeback is part of a global trend of countries rebooting nuclear power options, bolstered by steady improvements in technology, including more safety features and making reactors cheaper to build and operate.

Country divided by generations

At the sprawling Latina nuclear power plant south of Rome, workers in protective suits and masks are still dismantling the remains of Italy’s first nuclear era even as politicians discuss how to build a second.

The contrast is not lost on Viviana Cruciani, who oversees nuclear decommissioning at the site run by the state-owned company Sogin.

“There is a generation that came right after Chernobyl that still sees nuclear energy in light of the accident at Chernobyl only,” Cruciani told AP.

“But there is another generation, a lot younger, that is enthusiastic about nuclear, and it is even sorry that the country has not yet made any progress toward a comeback to this technology.”

A June 2026 survey by research firm Only Numbers found that about 55% of Italians support next-generation nuclear plants.

Michele Governatori, a senior energy adviser at climate and energy think tank ECCO, said support is more visible among younger Italians.

“There is greater openness, especially among younger generations,” he said, noting that many associate nuclear power with technological progress rather than with the accidents that shaped public opinion in earlier decades.

Cruciani said younger Italians are more likely to view nuclear power through the prism of future energy needs and climate goals than through memories of Cold War-era disasters.

“I think nuclear power can help the environment too. It’s more sustainable,” said Cristian Giannetti, a 20-year-old tourist from the Tuscan seaside town of Forte dei Marmi visiting Rome.

Asked about the possibility of another Chernobyl-type accident, he said technological advances had reduced the risks.

“With the expertise we have and all the resources available today, I think the probability is really minimal.”

Others support a return to nuclear power for practical reasons.

“We have an energy problem, so it’s very important that nuclear power gets the green light in Italy too,” said Paola Giovannini Pasti, president of Confagricoltura Donna, the women’s branch of Italy’s main agricultural lobby.

Critics question economics

Not everyone is convinced.

“If we use nuclear as a backup … the average energy costs become devastating. So unfortunately it’s not a good complement to renewables and it’s not cheap,” Governatori said.

Pichetto Fratin acknowledged that nuclear power is not a short-term solution to high electricity prices.

“Nuclear power does not lower consumers’ bills today,” he said. “The nuclear power of tomorrow can help reduce them.”

Industry estimates suggest a single 300-megawatt SMR could cost between 3 billion ($3.4 billion) and 6 billion euros before infrastructure and grid expenses. The government hopes much of that financing would come from private capital, Pichetto Fratin said.

Governatori believes that cost remains the weakest part of the government’s case.

“Nuclear power that is being built today in Europe has exorbitant costs,” he said. “On the one hand, costs are extremely high, and on the other, private investors are running away.”

He also questioned whether SMRs would dramatically improve those economics, noting that the technology has yet to be commercially proven at scale.

Even so, some critics support establishing a regulatory framework that could allow future projects to be evaluated on their merits.

Political test ahead

The biggest political obstacle might be finding locations to build reactors and store the waste.

Italy still lacks a national repository for existing nuclear waste, much of which remains stored at temporary facilities across the country. Any future reactor or waste-storage site is likely to face strong local opposition.

Even if Parliament approves the legislation, opponents – including environmental groups and left-wing parties – could seek a new referendum once specific reactor locations and waste-storage plans emerge.

Surveys suggest support for nuclear power drops sharply when people are asked whether they would accept a reactor near where they live. Polls cited by experts indicate that about six in 10 Italians oppose having a reactor in their own province.

“When you have to seriously ask where a plant will be built and how much it will cost, it is likely that public opinion could become negative again,” Governatori said.

Türkiye’s exports to Syria rose 26.4% year-over-year in the first half of 2026, extending strong trade momentum with its southern neighbor as shipments of cement, food products and energy-related goods increased sharply, official data showed.

Exports totaled $1.28 billion in January-June, according to data compiled from the Türkiye Exporters Assembly (TIM), while export volumes climbed 36.6% from a year earlier to 3.18 million metric tons.

Trade between the two countries gained momentum after the ouster of longtime dictator Bashar Assad in late 2024.

Ankara was the main backer of the opposition forces that overthrew Assad and has since pledged to help Syria’s reconstruction and economic revival.

Mill products accounted for the largest share of exports at $103.9 million, followed by cement at $102.3 million and electrical and energy products at $80.1 million. Cement exports more than doubled from a year earlier, rising 116.8%.

The southeastern region of Türkiye remained the largest contributor to exports to Syria, accounting for $461.8 million during the period. Export volumes from the region increased 34.6% year-over-year, while export value rose 11.4%.

Celal Kadooğlu, a board member of TIM and head of its Syria Desk, said exports to Syria had increased by about 70% in 2025 and that the upward trend had continued this year.

He said closer integration of Syria’s banking system with the international financial system, improving security conditions, and preparations to fully reopen the Islahiye and Nusaybin border crossings would further support bilateral trade.

“The positive steps taken by the leadership of both countries reinforce our goals for the future,” Kadooğlu said.

He also expressed confidence that Syria’s revised customs tariffs, introduced in June and covering more than 1,000 products, would be reassessed in line with the two countries’ common trade objectives.

Kadooğlu said high tariffs on certain product groups had significantly increased exporters’ costs, noting that customs duties of up to $1,000 per metric ton could raise the total cost of a standard 20-ton truck shipment by around $25,000, including additional charges.

Reducing those costs through bilateral dialogue would both strengthen Türkiye’s export potential and improve access to essential goods in Syria at more affordable prices, he said.

Kadooğlu added that revising customs tariffs in line with mutual interests and reinstating the bilateral free trade agreement would be important steps toward making trade between the two countries more predictable and sustainable.

The Daily Sabah Newsletter

Keep up to date with what’s happening in Turkey,
it’s region and the world.

SIGN ME UP

You can unsubscribe at any time. By signing up you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Peugeot will begin producing its Rifter light commercial vehicle in Türkiye beginning in the third quarter of 2026, a senior executive said on Monday.

The Rifter will become Stellantis-owned brand’s third light commercial vehicle produced at Turkish carmaker Tofaş’s plant in the northwestern Bursa province, following Expert Van and Expert Traveller models.

Peugeot Brand Director Gupse Kaplan said the move marked an important milestone for the French automaker, underscoring Türkiye’s growing role as both a major market and a strategic production hub.

“This development demonstrates Peugeot’s confidence in the Turkish market and the country’s strong automotive manufacturing infrastructure,” Kaplan said in a statement.

“With the addition of the Rifter to our locally produced light commercial vehicle lineup, we are taking our operations in Türkiye to a new level.”

The company said local production would improve its competitiveness by providing logistical and supply chain advantages.

Kaplan said manufacturing the Rifter in Bursa would strengthen the model’s market position by combining its SUV-inspired design with light commercial vehicle functionality for both business users and families.

The addition of the Rifter expands Peugeot’s locally manufactured light commercial vehicle range, with the company citing Tofaş’s production quality, efficiency, research and development capabilities, and vehicle engineering expertise as key factors behind the decision.

Peugeot entered Türkiye’s C-segment light commercial vehicle market in 2003 with the Partner model and has since sold 213,921 vehicles in the segment, including the Partner, Partner Tepee, Rifter and Partner Van.

Of those sales, 174,756 were passenger-oriented combi vans, while 39,165 were panel vans.

Since the launch of the Rifter and Partner Van in 2019, Peugeot has sold 84,556 units, comprising 67,404 Rifters and 17,152 Partner Vans.

The automaker sold 11,527 light commercial vehicles in Türkiye in the first six months of 2026, giving it a 9.8% market share, compared with 26,661 units and a 9.4% share for full-year 2025.

The Rifter was the second-most popular model in its segment in 2025 with 18,154 units sold, and maintained its position in the first six months of this year with 8,350 units sold.

The Rifter remained Peugeot’s best-performing model in the segment, accounting for 72% of the brand’s total light commercial vehicle sales. Together, the Rifter and Partner Van represented 82% of Peugeot’s light commercial vehicle sales in the country during the first half of the year.

Kaplan said the Rifter became the segment leader in June with sales of 2,278 units and expressed confidence that local production would further improve the model’s performance.

She added that Peugeot aims to expand its light commercial vehicle operations in Türkiye and sustainably increase its market share by leveraging local manufacturing.

“With 30 years of light commercial vehicle experience, the Rifter’s strong market performance and Türkiye’s automotive manufacturing expertise, we see significant growth potential,” Kaplan said.

“We aim to strengthen our position in our segments and sustainably increase our share of the light commercial vehicle market through local production.”

The Daily Sabah Newsletter

Keep up to date with what’s happening in Turkey,
it’s region and the world.

SIGN ME UP

You can unsubscribe at any time. By signing up you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Ukrainian forces have been targeting Russia’s energy infrastructure in what Kyiv says is an attempt to limit the resources available to fund Moscow’s military.

Here is a summary of the attacks, beginning with the most recent, and their effects:

Tyumen

A Ukrainian drone strike sparked a fire at the Tyumen refinery in western Siberia, more than 2,000 km (1,200 miles) ​from Ukraine, but the blaze was later extinguished, local Russian authorities said on July 25.

The refinery has a nominal capacity of around 8 million metric tons per year. It processes roughly 6 million tons of crude annually, producing about 0.5 million tons of gasoline and 2.5 million tons ⁠of diesel, according to industry estimates.

Yaroslavl

Ukrainian forces attacked Russian oil facilities in Yaroslavl, some ⁠250 km northeast of Moscow, on July 27, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said.

The refinery in Yaroslavl has processing capacity of 15 million metric tons per year, or around 300,000 barrels per day.

Salavat

Salavat petrochemical complex, in the Urals region of Bashkortostan, halted operations on July 14 following a Ukrainian drone attack, industry sources said.

Afipsky

A fire broke out ​at the Afipsky oil refinery in Russia’s southern Krasnodar region as a result of falling drone debris, the emergency services said on ​July ⁠14. The refinery can process over 9 million metric tons of oil per year.

Syzran

Russia’s Syzran oil refinery on the Volga River in the Samara region halted operations after a Ukrainian drone attack on July 12 damaged a primary processing unit, industry sources said.

On May 21, Ukrainian drones struck the Rosneft-owned refinery. The refinery halted operations after the attack damaged a primary processing unit. It had previously suspended oil refining after attacks on April 18.

The refinery has a processing capacity of 8.5 million tons per year. In 2024, it processed 4.3 million tons of crude into 800,000 tons of gasoline, 1.5 million tons of diesel and 700,000 tons of fuel oil, according to industry sources.

Saratov

Russia’s Saratov oil refinery stopped oil processing on July 9 following damage from a drone attack, two sources said.

In 2024, the plant processed 5.8 million tons of oil, or 2.2% of Russia’s total refining output, producing 1.2 million tons of gasoline, 1.9 million tons of diesel and 1 million tons of fuel oil.

Ilsky

Russia’s Ilsky oil refinery in the southern Krasnodar region caught fire after a drone attack, local officials said on July 10.

The refinery’s design capacity is over 6 million metric tons of oil per year.

Omsk

Ukrainian drones struck the Omsk refinery on July 6, causing a fire. Russian air defenses destroyed most of the drones involved in the attack, Governor Vitaly Khotsenko said. It was ⁠not immediately clear ⁠how much damage the refinery had sustained.

The design capacity of the Omsk oil refinery is approximately 22 million metric tons of oil per year.

NORSI

Ukrainian drones hit NORSI, Russia’s fourth-largest oil refinery, owned by Lukoil, for a second time on July 2, and crude processing was suspended, according to sources.

They said the attack had damaged a primary refining unit, CDU-6, which is usually able to process 25,700 metric tons per day, accounting for 53% of the refinery’s overall capacity.

NORSI, which is Russia’s second-largest producer of gasoline, can process 16 million metric tons of oil per year, or around 320,000 barrels per day.

Slavyansk

Ukrainian drones struck Russian targets including the Slavyansk oil refinery in the southern Krasnodar region on June 28, local authorities said.

Slavyansk refinery is a private plant with a capacity of about 100,000 barrels per day.

Ufa

Ukraine’s forces struck an oil refinery for a second time on July 1 in the city of Ufa, near the southern Ural mountains.

The refinery can process more than 7 million tons of oil per year.

Orenburg

Ukraine’s military said on June 24 it had struck Orenburg gas processing plant, which has a ⁠capacity of 45 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year.

Moscow

Moscow oil refinery halted operations after a Ukrainian drone attack on June 16, sources said. On June 18, another attack damaged processing units and sparked multiple fires.

The facility in the capital’s southeastern Kapotnya district has an annual capacity of around 11 million tons of oil.

TANECO

Russian Tatneft’s TANECO oil refinery halted operations after a drone attack on June 12.

It is one of Russia’s most technologically advanced refineries, ​equipped with hydrocracking, catalytic cracking and delayed coking units.

TANECO processed 17 million tons of crude oil in 2024, producing 2.7 million tons of gasoline, 8.5 million tons of diesel fuel and 1.3 million ​tons of petroleum coke, according to industry data.

Kuibyshev

Rosneft’s Kuibyshev oil refinery halted processing on June 10 after a drone attack.

The refinery processed 4.7 million tons of crude in 2024, according to industry sources.

Tuapse

Ukraine struck a refinery in the Black Sea port of Tuapse on May 27, Ukraine’s military said. A drone attack caused a major fire at the refinery ⁠on April 28, officials said, causing ‌the facility to ‌halt operations.

It has a capacity of around 12 million tons per year and produces naphtha, diesel, fuel oil and vacuum gasoil.

Ports/oil ⁠facilities

The Caspian Pipeline Consortium stopped receiving oil from July 20 following the suspension of loadings due to attacks on oil tankers ‌at its Black Sea terminal, which was set to resume oil loadings later on Monday, three industry sources told Reuters.

Ukrainian drones struck the Filanovsky oil platform belonging to Russia’s Lukoil in the Caspian Sea, Kyiv’s security service said on July 25.

Ukraine ​struck two Russian oil depots in the Tver and Stavropol regions, ⁠both about 500 km from the front line, President Zelenskyy said on July 9.

Ukrainian drones on July 8 struck the Krasnodarskaya ⁠pumping station, part of the natural gas supply chain to Türkiye via the Blue Stream pipeline, but gas supplies were not affected.

Ukrainian drones struck an oil pumping station in Russia’s Bashkortostan region, ⁠more than 1,500 km from the border, Kyiv ​said on July 8.

Ukrainian drone attacks on July 6 damaged the Baltic Sea ports of Vysotsk and Ust-Luga, a major oil exporting outlet, and caused a power blackout in the Crimean city of Sevastopol, home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, authorities said.

A loading complex caught fire in the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk after a drone attack, authorities said on June 8.

Higher reservoir levels in Türkiye helped drive hydroelectric power generation to a record in the first half of the year, boosting the renewable source’s share of electricity production to more than 32%, according to official data.

Data compiled from Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation (TEIAŞ) water reports showed dam fill levels reached 71.3% as of July 19, up from 61.4% a year earlier and 51.7% two years ago.

The total active water volume in dams across the country rose to 72.53 billion cubic meters, compared with 30.24 billion cubic meters in the same period last year, reflecting a 139.9% increase in water inflows.

The stronger water supply translated into a sharp rise in hydropower generation.

Electricity output from hydroelectric plants increased 68% year-over-year in the first six months of the year to 57 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh), up from 33.9 billion kWh a year earlier.

As a result, hydroelectric power accounted for more than 32% of Türkiye’s total electricity generation during the period.

Renewables are a key part of Türkiye’s broader push to diversify energy supply and reduce its heavy import dependence.

Supported by strong investment and favorable weather conditions, renewable generation climbed to new highs this year, led by a sharp rebound in hydropower after last year’s drought and rising solar output.

Türkiye experienced its driest year in half a century in 2025, when hydropower’s share in electricity generation fell to as low as 16%.

Hydroelectric power plants accounted for 32,314 megawatts of the country’s 125,800-megawatt total installed power capacity in the first half of this year.

Türkiye ranks among the world’s top 10 countries and second in Europe in terms of hydropower capacity.

Elvan Tuğsuz Güven, chair of the Hydroelectric Power Plants Industrialists Association (HESIAD), said last week that hydropower generation helped Türkiye avoid nearly $5 billion in energy imports so far this year.

Industry representatives have this year been highlighting the potential of pumped-storage hydropower, which stores excess electricity by pumping water to elevated reservoirs and releasing it during periods of high demand.

According to preliminary studies by the State Hydraulic Works, Türkiye has 13.9 GW of pumped-storage hydropower potential, equivalent to around 11% of total installed capacity.

TEIAŞ data showed water inflows accelerated particularly during the spring months, with May recording the highest monthly inflow at 19.3 billion cubic meters.

Reservoirs also received between two and three times more water than a year earlier during February, April and June.

During the first 19 days of July alone, inflows to the country’s main reservoir basins totaled 3.44 billion cubic meters. Daily inflows peaked at 217.4 million cubic meters on July 1 and reached a low of 147.2 million cubic meters on July 16.

Major hydroelectric reservoirs benefiting from the higher inflows included Keban, Deriner, Altınkaya, Hirfanlı, Boyabat, Oymapınar and Alpaslan-1, while other facilities such as Adıgüzel, Alkumru, Batman, Dicle, Ermenek, Hasan Uğurlu, Karacaören, Kemer, Kralkızı, Özlüce, Sarıyar, Torul, Yamula and Yedigöze also recorded improved water availability.

The report showed cumulative inflows during the first seven months reached 72.53 billion cubic meters, exceeding both the long-term average of 55.93 billion cubic meters and the official program target of 37.18 billion cubic meters.

Water inflows reached 195.1% of the planned target and stood 29.7% above the long-term average.

The Daily Sabah Newsletter

Keep up to date with what’s happening in Turkey,
it’s region and the world.

SIGN ME UP

You can unsubscribe at any time. By signing up you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.