Expert panel against approving ₹10,000 crore Sharavathi Pumped Storage Project citing irreversible ecological harm

Published 2026-07-11 · Updated 2026-07-11 · 3 min · 422 words

UPSC CSE Context

Why in News: Expert panel recommends rejecting Sharavathi Pumped Storage Project due to irreversible ecological harm. Syllabus Connection: Environment and Ecology: Wildlife conservation, Environmental Impact Assessment, Energy projects in protected areas. Exam Relevance: Highlights conflict between renewable energy goals and biodiversity conservation, relevant for environment and governance questions. ## Core Issue Expert panel opposes ₹10,000 crore pumped storage project in wildlife sanctuary. Key Development: NBWL-appointed committee recommends against approval citing ecological damage and net power loss. Stakeholders:

• Karnataka government
• Karnataka Power Corporation Limited
• National Board for Wildlife
• Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
• Petitioners (Akhilesh Chipli et al.)
• Lion-tailed macaque
• Tiger corridor ## Static Knowledge High-Value Background:
• Pumped storage projects store energy by pumping water uphill during low demand and releasing it to generate power during peak demand. Exam Linkage:
• Useful for questions on balancing renewable energy with wildlife conservation and EIA. Concepts in Context:
• Eco-Sensitive Zone: areas around protected areas regulated to minimize impact.
• Section 29 of Wildlife Protection Act prohibits activities in sanctuaries without permission. Institutions and Mechanisms:
• National Tiger Conservation Authority: statutory body for tiger conservation. ## Dynamic Analysis ### Environment and Ecology
• Cumulative stress from existing hydropower infrastructure already degrades the ecosystem.
• Irreversible ecological costs outweigh limited operational benefits. ### Energy and Economy
• Project results in net loss of 500 MW, merely shifting power generation timing without adding capacity.
• High capital cost of ₹10,000 crore with negative energy output raises economic viability concerns.
• Disjointed proposal with concealed facts about transmission line requirements. ### Governance and Legal
• Expert committee's recommendation challenges state government's push for project.
• PIL underlines judicial scrutiny of projects in protected areas.
• Proposal's inadequacy for comprehensive assessment highlights flaws in EIA process. ## Prelims Takeaways
• Pumped storage projects consume more electricity than they generate due to efficiency losses. ## Mains Value Addition Arguments:
• Renewable energy projects must not come at cost of biodiversity; cumulative impact assessment needed.
• Pumped storage projects can support grid stability but should be sited outside ecologically sensitive areas.
• Transparency in project proposals is essential for informed decision-making. Data Points:
• Project cost: ₹10,000 crore.
• Generates 2,000 MW at night consuming 2,500 MW during day. Counterpoints:
• Pumped storage can integrate intermittent renewables like solar and wind.
• State government may argue energy security benefits. ## Way Forward
• Conduct comprehensive cumulative impact assessment for all hydropower projects in the region.
• Explore alternative sites for pumped storage outside protected areas and eco-sensitive zones.
• Strengthen EIA process to ensure full disclosure of project components and impacts.
• Promote energy storage technologies with lower ecological footprint, such as battery storage.

Primary/reference source: National News