In a detailed letter addressed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, energy and climate policy analyst Shankar Sharma has raised grave concerns over the escalating approval and construction of Pumped Storage Projects (PSPs) across India’s ecologically fragile river valleys. He has warned that these projects, if pursued unchecked, could result in irreparable damage to the country’s riverine ecology, biodiversity hotspots, and forest wealth—particularly in the Western Ghats.
Writing from Sagara in Karnataka’s Western Ghats, Sharma criticizes what he calls a “highly disconcerting ecological governance scenario,” involving the Union Ministries of Power and Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). According to him, both ministries appear to be aggressively pushing the PSP model without offering a comprehensive policy framework, ecological impact assessments, or transparent public consultations. This aggressive pursuit, he notes, is occurring in the absence of clear justification for why PSPs are considered indispensable for India’s energy future.
As per reports cited by Sharma, there are currently 125 PSP proposals nationwide, amounting to a cumulative capacity of 151.7 GW in the environmental clearance pipeline. Of this, about 13.3% have either received environmental clearance or initiated construction. Despite this massive expansion, there is no publicly available policy paper outlining the rationale, benefits, or environmental consequences of these projects. Nor is there evidence that alternative storage technologies—such as Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS)—have been given serious policy consideration.
Sharma’s primary concern revolves around the ecological and social costs of these PSPs, which are typically situated in river valleys, wildlife sanctuaries, and other environmentally sensitive areas. The Western Ghats, one of the world’s eight “hottest hotspots” of biodiversity, are facing particularly severe threats. Sharma points out that around 15 PSPs are being actively considered for this region, which is already reeling from decades of environmental degradation. He warns that even the implementation of 10 to 12 of these projects could inflict permanent ecological damage on the region’s delicate forest ecosystems, water sources, and biodiversity.
In Karnataka alone, Sharma highlights three projects as particularly concerning: a 2,000 MW project in the Sharavathi Linganamakki sanctuary, which threatens over 350 acres of dense tropical rainforest; a 1,500 MW project in the Varahi river valley, also within a sanctuary; and a 1,200 MW project near Saundatti in the Malaprabha river catchment area, which could lead to the felling of 60,000 trees. These projects, he says, are being fast-tracked by the state government with minimal regard for ecological impacts, despite the fact that Karnataka’s forest and tree cover stands at only 22%, below the national target of 33% set by the Forest Policy.
More broadly, Sharma expresses dismay at the indifference shown by public authorities to representations by civil society groups, environmentalists, and the media. He notes that the Supreme Court of India has itself remarked that “cutting a large number of trees is worse than killing a human being,” a sentiment that has been echoed in recent media investigations exposing the environmental risks of projects such as Adani Group’s pumped hydro ventures in the Western Ghats.
In contrast to the PSP model, Sharma promotes Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) as a cleaner, more efficient, and faster-to-deploy solution to India’s energy storage needs. He argues that BESS projects not only avoid the need for large-scale deforestation and displacement but also align better with India’s climate goals and renewable energy ambitions. He cites several recent developments in support of BESS, including the government’s own 30 GWh Viability Gap Funding (VGF) scheme, international investments in India’s battery storage sector, and media reports showing rapid price declines in battery technologies.
The Central Electricity Authority (CEA) has itself projected that about 60% of India’s energy storage requirements, measured in gigawatt-hours, should come from BESS. Sharma questions why, despite such projections and global trends favoring battery storage, PSPs are still being promoted aggressively in India. According to him, BESS projects have significantly shorter gestation periods—around 10 to 12 months, compared to 5 to 8 years for PSPs—and are now achieving power tariffs below ₹6/kWh.
Quoting from a study by Prayas Energy Group titled “Flooded with Options?”, Sharma underscores that alternative mechanisms such as Time of Day (ToD) tariffs and solarisation of agricultural feeders can further reduce the demand for large-scale storage projects. The study notes that the current pace of PSP development is being driven largely by private sector interest, rather than any rigorously examined public need.
Sharma’s letter calls on Prime Minister Modi to issue immediate instructions to halt all PSP proposals in river valleys and eco-sensitive areas. He urges that credible alternatives—such as BESS, demand-side management (DSM), and energy efficiency improvements—be considered as the primary means for enabling renewable energy integration into India’s power grid. He also calls for the preparation and release of a comprehensive and transparent policy document assessing the viability and comparative costs of all energy storage technologies.
In concluding, Sharma issues a stern warning: “Without a demonstrated commitment to protect our natural forests and river valleys, it is futile for our ministers and bureaucrats to speak of environmental responsibility. The very sanity of our ecological governance is now under serious question.”
The letter has been shared with the Council of Ministers and is accompanied by references to several investigative reports, policy studies, and court observations that underline the urgency of the issue.
Comments