The Ministry of Power’s Draft National Electricity Policy (NEP), 2026 has drawn sharp criticism from power and climate policy analyst Shankar Sharma, who has submitted detailed feedback highlighting what he calls “serious omissions” in the government’s approach to energy transition.
In his commentary, Sharma argues that while the draft policy acknowledges India’s achievements in electrification and the projected dominance of non-fossil sources by 2047, it fails to adequately address constitutional obligations under sections 48(a) and 51(a)(g) to protect rivers, forests, biodiversity, and living beings. He contends that the policy’s emphasis on capacity expansion and transmission infrastructure overlooks the ecological and social costs of conventional technologies and large-scale renewable projects.
Sharma points out that despite the Electricity Act, 2003 stressing environmentally benign policies, consumer protection, and rational tariffs, the draft NEP does not sufficiently integrate these principles. “There has never been a diligent discussion paper in the official circles on various environmental and ecological impacts of the power sector on our communities all these years,” he notes, adding that the absence of focus on climate change adaptation and mitigation is glaring. He stresses that demand-side management, sectoral efficiencies, and energy conservation could reduce national grid demand by as much as 35–40 percent, yet the draft only makes cursory references to efficiency. “Reducing and minimising overall energy demand is critical to attain sustainability goals,” Sharma insists.
A major concern raised in his feedback is the lack of cost-benefit analysis in technology choices. Citing studies from the US Energy Information Administration, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lazard, and Stanford University, Sharma underscores that nuclear power remains among the most expensive and least sustainable options compared to solar and wind. He warns that the projected ₹200 lakh crore investment by 2047 in generation, transmission, and distribution will impose massive ecological and social costs through land diversion, water use, and displacement of communities. Distributed renewable energy sources such as rooftop solar and small wind turbines, he argues, could reduce capital burdens, transmission losses, and empower consumers as “prosumers.” “Only these small-size RE sources will enable end users to participate effectively in decisions in the power sector and can massively reduce the capital finance burden,” Sharma writes.
He also criticises the policy’s silence on the risks of pumped storage plants and nuclear expansion under the recently enacted SHANTI Act, warning of ecological devastation in river valleys and unresolved safety concerns. “There has been no official clarification as to why the ecological devastation associated with potentially more than 100 PSPs should be acceptable as compared to the enormously advantageous battery energy storage systems,” Sharma observes. He further cautions that the rising electricity demand from AI and data centres should be met through privately managed sources to ensure accountability and efficiency.
Sharma’s recommendations call for a paradigm shift in electricity planning. He urges the Ministry to adopt integrated policies that minimise peak and annual demand, apply rigorous cost-benefit analysis, and prioritise distributed renewable energy supported by battery storage. He envisions a federation of micro, mini, and smart grids fed by local resources, which could eliminate the need for costly high-voltage transmission lines and reduce environmental damage. “The unwavering focus ahead should be to eliminate conventional technology power sources such as coal, gas, dam-based hydro, and nuclear by the earliest time frame, say before 2050,” he asserts, adding that such a move could advance India’s net zero target from 2075 to 2050.
In his long-term perspective, Sharma argues that India’s vast solar potential—estimated at 5,000 trillion units annually—makes it realistic to meet almost all electricity demand through solar, supplemented by wind and bioenergy. He calls for tariffs that reflect true ecological costs and for consumers to gradually assume responsibility for their own electricity needs by 2050–60. “A paradigm shift in the way we deal with the demand and supply of electricity, keeping in view the overall welfare perspective of our people, is critically and urgently needed,” Sharma concludes, urging policymakers to reconsider the draft NEP in light of climate imperatives and societal costs.
Comments