Hyderabad: Karnataka government’s ambitious Sharavathi pumped storage hydroelectric project (PSHP) has ignited fierce debate with environmentalists and locals warning of irreversible ecological damage to the fragile Western Ghats ecosystem. Despite mounting opposition, the state is pushing ahead with the Rs 8,000-crore project.
Project overview: Aiming for 2000 MW power
The Sharavathi PSHP, designed to generate 2,000 MW of electricity, involves constructing upper (Talakalale) and lower (Gerusoppa) reservoirs. Water will be pumped uphill during off-season using grid power and released downhill during peak demand to generate electricity. Modelled on the lines of Telangana’s Kaleshwaram project, it also aims to supply drinking water to Bengaluru. Five tunnels and eight pumping stations are critical parts of the plan.
Environmental red flags: Deforestation and endangered wildlife
Sharavathi Valley, also known as Lion-tailed Macaque sanctuary, is known as one of the largest protected forest areas in the Western Ghats. The sanctuary is also assessed to be one of the eight hotspots for bio-diversity conservation in the world. The Sharavathi river valley is home to a diverse range of species and sustains a very rich biodiversity, some of which are still unknown to the outer world.
Most importantly it is home to endangered and endemic Lion-tailed Macaque and vulnerable Great Indian Hornbill apart from many other endangered species. It is also a vital wildlife corridor that connects the Gerusoppa-Kyadagiregion to the north and Govardhanagiri-Jog state forest to the south. The site of the proposed plant requires about 360 acres of pristine forest land within the core of the recently notified Sharavathi valley LTM wildlife sanctuary.
The enormity of the potential loss of very rich biodiversity of over 360 acres of a wildlife sanctuary at a time when forest and tree cover in the state is only about 20% as against the national forest policy target of 33%, and at a time when such rich tropical forests land is considered as a highly effective tool against global warming, should be considered against the meager benefits from the proposed project.
Also read: The Good and Bad of River Linking Projects
“Section 29 of the Wildlife Protection Act clearly prohibits any kind of destruction of wildlife including its habitat inside a wildlife sanctuary unless the destruction is unambiguously for the betterment of wildlife and its habitat. The proposed power plant would certainly not benefit wildlife or its habitat, but will only destroy a considerable portion of that habitat. This project will, hence, be a clear violation of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972,” Shankar Sharma, power policy analyst told The Wire.
Technical and feasibility concerns
The proposed pumped storage power plant will consume about 25% more electricity in pumping water from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir as compared to the electricity it can generate from the same volume of water, as per the pre-feasibility report.
According to the proposal, the 2,000 MW capacity power project is estimated to generate about 12,000 MWH per year of electricity, whereas about 14,833 MWH of energy is estimated to be consumed in the process of pumping water from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir. This effectively means that the proposed pumped storage power plant scheme will consume about 24% more energy from the grid than it can generate in a year.
“For the period [of] April to August 2019 the peak power demand in the state was 12,700 MW and the deficit was only 12 MW. As compared to the peak power demand of 7,815 MW in FY2011, the increase in peak power demand is about 62% in eight years, and about 6-8% per year on an average. The question that needs to be answered in this context is whether the state can afford such vast increase in peak hour power demand, for which many more pumped storage hydel plants may have to be constructed at enormous cost to the state,” Sharma said.
“A diligent analysis of various associated issues in this regard will reveal the criticality for the state to apply necessary course corrections to limit the increase in its peak hour power demand to a manageable level, and also to find suitable alternatives to meet such an increase. The pre-feasibility report has wrongly referred to the peak power demand/supply of the entire southern region to substantiate the need for this project. The management of peak power demand of any state should be primarily the responsibility of that state, and hence Karnataka has to concern itself with satisfactorily managing its peak hour demand through its own sources. Also, it should not destroy its precious biodiversity to compensate for the inability of other states to manage their power demand,” he added.
Controversial tenders and corruption allegations
The Karnataka high court has intervened in a contentious bidding process for the Sharavathi pumped storage power project, issuing a stay order on March 11, 2024, following allegations of procedural irregularities and corruption. A division bench paused all proceedings related to the short-term tender after Larsen & Toubro (L&T) appealed a March 6 ruling by a single-judge bench that dismissed its petition challenging the tender’s legitimacy.
The controversy deepened when it emerged that the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) had already awarded the contract to Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Limited (MEIL) before the single-judge order was made public. L&T, a rival bidder, argued the 21-day tender period violated Section 3(3) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999, which mandates longer timelines for tenders exceeding Rs 2 crore.
Also read: Ken-Betwa River Linking Project: A Recipe for Bulldozing Public Policy Amidst Environmental Concerns
MEIL, currently under scrutiny by central agencies for its alleged role in irregularities linked to Telangana’s Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project, secured the bid despite competing against L&T. The court’s initial dismissal of L&T’s petition and KPCL’s swift awarding of the contract have sparked accusations of favoritism. Opposition parties, including the Bharatiya Janata Party and Janata Dal (Secular), have slammed the Congress-led Karnataka government, alleging the tender was “fast-tracked to benefit vested interests.”
KPCL defends the project, citing conditional approvals from the state wildlife board and environmental departments. However, central forestry and environmental clearances remain pending. Activists vow legal battles and grassroots protests, while machinery mobilisation has already begun, sparking fresh clashes.
As Karnataka navigates conflicting priorities, the Sharavathi project underscores a national dilemma: Can India’s energy goals coexist with ecological survival? With protests intensifying and legal challenges looming, the fate of the Western Ghats – and the endangered species within – hangs in the balance.
M. Balakrishna is a veteran journalist.
