The Cost of Energy Transition, When Clean Power Collides with Biodiversity
The Karnataka High Court’s Order Halting Work on the Sharavathi Pumped Storage Project Revives a Longstanding Debate About the True Price of Renewable Energy
The Karnataka High Court, earlier this month, directed the State government to stop work in the forest area for the Sharavathi Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project, until further orders. A group of environmentalists had moved the Court, challenging the State Wildlife Board’s approval for the proposed project in the Sharavathi Lion-Tailed Macaque Wildlife Sanctuary—a part of the Western Ghats, and a biodiversity hotspot. The Court’s order boosted the morale of the environmentalists, who have been opposing the project since 2017.
This is not merely a local dispute about a single dam. It is a microcosm of a global dilemma: how to balance the urgent need for clean energy with the equally urgent need to protect the planet’s remaining biodiversity. The Sharavathi project, like many proposed renewable energy developments around the world, pits two legitimate goals against each other. The result, in this case, has been a decade of conflict, legal battles, and uncertainty.
The Project at the Heart of the Controversy
The Karnataka Power Corporation Limited proposed the project in the valley of the Sharavathi river, which flows for about 130 km through the Western Ghats before reaching the Arabian Sea. The river is already the State’s primary hydel power source, with four major power stations operating in its valley.
The KPCL aims to generate 2,000 MW through this project to meet peak-hour energy demands, which can touch 18,000 MW daily. The project has been defended on the grounds that the Central Electricity Authority has recommended a transition to clean energy, targeting 50 per cent non-fossil fuel capacity by 2030. The cost of the project, which was estimated to be around ₹4,800 crore in 2017, has now escalated to nearly ₹10,240 crore.
A pumped storage project works like a giant battery. During periods of low electricity demand, water is pumped from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir. When demand peaks, the water is released back down through turbines to generate electricity. It is a proven technology that provides grid stability and enables the integration of variable renewable sources like solar and wind.
But the Sharavathi project is not located in a barren landscape. It is proposed within the Sharavathi Lion-Tailed Macaque Wildlife Sanctuary, part of the Western Ghats—a UNESCO World Heritage Site and one of the world’s eight “hottest hotspots” of biological diversity.
The Ecological Stakes
The Western Ghats are home to an extraordinary concentration of endemic species found nowhere else on Earth. Among them is the lion-tailed macaque, an endangered primate that is endemic to the region. The species is already under threat from habitat fragmentation, and the proposed project would cut through the forests that sustain it.
Environmentalists, locals, farmers’ organisations, and heads of religious institutions spread over the Shivamogga and Uttara Kannada districts have been protesting against the project. They have held several meetings and highlighted the destruction the project will cause to the forests and endangered species of flora and fauna, including the lion-tailed macaques.
Local residents, who have witnessed frequent landslides during heavy rains in the past few years, are worried that the construction of tunnels might cause irreparable damage to the region. The Western Ghats are geologically sensitive, with steep slopes and high rainfall. Any disturbance to the natural drainage patterns can have catastrophic consequences downstream.
They are also concerned that the implementing agency might take additional forest land to lay the lines needed to carry the power generated by the project. What starts as a 2,000 MW project could, through associated infrastructure, consume far more forest than initially estimated.
The Regulatory Landscape
The project has received the approval of the State Wildlife Board and an in-principle approval from the National Board for Wildlife, but forest and environmental clearances are still pending. These are not mere formalities; they are the legal mechanisms through which India’s environmental laws are enforced.
The Karnataka State Wildlife Board gave its approval for the project in January 2025, with certain conditions. Initially, the KPCL had estimated that more than 16,000 trees were to be cut for the project. The board suggested that this be reduced to 7,000 to 8,000 trees. Even so, the project would still require the felling of thousands of trees in a protected sanctuary.
Interestingly, a site inspection report filed by Praneetha Paul, Deputy Inspector General of Forest of the Regional Office of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, did not recommend the project proposal. The officer stated that the construction of new roads, and the widening of existing roads and other structures would result in the complete destruction of the wet evergreen forests, and that cutting trees would isolate the population of lion-tailed macaques.
Environmentalists have cited this report as a key document to support their arguments. It is not every day that a senior forest officer recommends against a project that has received political backing. The report lends weight to the claim that the ecological costs of the project outweigh its benefits.
The Expert Panel’s Verdict
Considering the serious opposition from the public, representatives of the KPCL held meetings in parts of Shivamogga and Uttara Kannada in October 2025 to defend the project. A team of officials tried to convince the people that the impact of the project would be minimal. They also argued that the project was necessary considering the need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels for energy production.
However, the KPCL’s efforts have failed to convince the protesters. Considering the stiff opposition, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change sent an expert panel to visit the project site. The panel’s report was damning: the “limited operational benefit offered by the project seems outweighed by the irreversible ecological, environmental and social costs involved.”
This is a striking conclusion from a government-appointed panel. It suggests that even within the bureaucracy, there is recognition that the project’s costs are too high.
The Legal Setback
The Karnataka High Court’s direction to stop work until further orders is a significant legal setback for the project. The petitioners, including environmentalist Akhilesh Chipli, had alleged that the project is against the laws that prohibit non-forest activities in the region. The Court’s order suggests that it found merit in this argument.
The legal challenge is likely to continue. The KPCL’s next move before the Court and the National Board for Wildlife will be keenly watched. If the project is ultimately struck down, it would send a strong signal about the limits of development in ecologically sensitive areas.
The Larger Questions
The Sharavathi controversy raises questions that extend far beyond a single valley in Karnataka. How do we balance the urgent need for renewable energy against the equally urgent need to protect biodiversity? Are there some places that should be off-limits to development, no matter how clean the energy they produce? Who decides, and on what basis?
India has committed to ambitious renewable energy targets. It needs to add vast amounts of solar, wind, and hydro capacity to meet its climate goals and its growing electricity demand. But the land and water required for this expansion are not unlimited. Every renewable energy project has an environmental footprint, and some footprints are larger than others.
The Western Ghats are a case in point. The region is both a critical source of water and power for peninsular India and a globally significant repository of biodiversity. It is the kind of place where conservationists and developers have been at odds for decades. The Sharavathi project is the latest chapter in that long struggle.
The Way Forward
What should be done? The first step is to acknowledge that the conflict is not between “development” and “environment” but between two legitimate goals that must be reconciled. Neither can be pursued to the exclusion of the other.
The second step is to ensure that decisions are made transparently, with full consideration of all costs and benefits. The process that led to the Sharavathi project’s approval appears to have been flawed. The expert panel’s report, the forest officer’s inspection, and the High Court’s intervention all suggest that the project’s environmental impacts were not adequately assessed before approvals were granted.
The third step is to explore alternatives. Could the same energy be generated elsewhere with less ecological impact? Could demand-side measures reduce the need for new capacity? Could existing hydropower facilities be upgraded to provide more flexible generation?
The fourth step is to recognise that the energy transition will require trade-offs. We cannot have unlimited clean energy with zero environmental impact. But we can choose to place renewable energy infrastructure in locations where the damage is minimal, and to design it in ways that minimise harm.
Conclusion: A Pivotal Moment
The Karnataka High Court’s order has given new life to the opposition against the Sharavathi project. It has also given new hope to those who believe that the Western Ghats deserve protection. But it is not the final word. The legal battle will continue, and the project’s fate remains uncertain.
What is clear is that the Sharavathi controversy is not going away. It is a reminder that the energy transition is not a simple story of replacing dirty energy with clean energy. It is a story of choices, trade-offs, and consequences. The choices we make today will shape the landscape for generations.
The cost of energy transition is not measured only in rupees. It is measured in trees cut, species lost, and communities displaced. The Sharavathi project, if it proceeds, will have costs that cannot be quantified. The question is whether those costs are worth paying.
Q&A: Unpacking the Sharavathi Project Controversy
Q1: What is the Sharavathi Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project and why is it proposed?
A: The Karnataka Power Corporation Limited proposed a 2,000 MW pumped storage project in the valley of the Sharavathi river. Pumped storage works like a giant battery: water is pumped to an upper reservoir during low-demand periods and released through turbines during peak demand to generate electricity. The project is intended to meet peak-hour energy demands (which can reach 18,000 MW daily) and support India’s transition to clean energy, targeting 50% non-fossil fuel capacity by 2030.
Q2: Why are environmentalists and locals opposing the project?
A: The project is proposed within the Sharavathi Lion-Tailed Macaque Wildlife Sanctuary, part of the Western Ghats—a UNESCO World Heritage Site and biodiversity hotspot. It would require felling thousands of trees (initially estimated at over 16,000, reduced to 7,000-8,000) and would fragment habitat for endangered species like the lion-tailed macaque. Local residents fear tunnel construction could trigger landslides in the geologically sensitive region, and that associated infrastructure would consume additional forest land.
Q3: What did the expert panel and forest officer conclude about the project?
A: A site inspection report by the Deputy Inspector General of Forest did not recommend the project, stating that construction would result in the complete destruction of wet evergreen forests and isolate lion-tailed macaque populations. Later, an expert panel sent by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change concluded that the “limited operational benefit offered by the project seems outweighed by the irreversible ecological, environmental and social costs involved.”
Q4: What did the Karnataka High Court decide?
A: The Karnataka High Court directed the State government to stop work in the forest area for the project until further orders. The Court was hearing a petition challenging the State Wildlife Board’s approval, alleging the project violates laws prohibiting non-forest activities in protected areas. The order boosted the morale of environmentalists who have opposed the project since 2017.
Q5: What larger questions does the Sharavathi controversy raise?
A: The controversy highlights the global dilemma of balancing renewable energy expansion with biodiversity protection. It raises questions about whether some places should be off-limits to development regardless of clean energy benefits, how decisions should be made when legitimate goals conflict, and how to ensure transparent assessment of environmental impacts before approvals are granted. It also underscores that the energy transition involves trade-offs and requires careful site selection to minimise ecological damage.
