Pumping water uphill for the Sharavathi and Varahi Pumped Storage Project (PSP) will consume 24% more electricity than the project produces. The source electricity for pumping, coming from the grid, may or may not be renewable. Additionally, the cost of pumping and Cost-Benefit analysis remains hidden behind the red tape of national security and trade secrets, denying citizens the ability to scrutinise claims, weigh ecological risks against economic benefits, and hold decision-makers accountable.
The 2,000 MW Sharavathi PSP cycles water between two reservoirs at different elevations—releasing water from the upper Talakalale Reservoir to the lower Gerusoppa Reservoir during peak demand to generate electricity, and pumping it back uphill during off-peak hours, typically at night.
The 1,500 MW Varahi PSP is designed to operate in a similar manner, with its upper reservoir formed behind the existing Hulical Forebay Dam and a newly proposed lower reservoir downstream.
According to the 2017 pre-feasibility reports, the Sharavathi and Varahi projects would cycle about 12 million cubic meters (MCM) and 8 MCM of water, respectively, every day.
In the case of Sharavathi, pumping water to the upper Talakalale reservoir consumes 14,800 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity, while generation yields only about 12,000 MWh, resulting in a 24% net energy loss. Similarly, for the Varahi Pumped Storage Project (PSP), design estimates show that it would generate about 9,000 MWh, but require 11,125 MWh for pumping water to the upper reservoir. This means the Varahi PSP would consume about 24% more electricity for pumping than it produces as output.
That is, for every 100 units of electricity used to pump water uphill, only about 76 units return as usable electricity. It’s like depositing ₹100 in a bank and getting back only ₹76—the principal itself eroded, let alone earning any interest.
In essence, pumped storage does not create new energy—it merely shifts electricity from off-peak to peak, losing 24% in the process and becoming a net consumer rather than a producer. Repeating this cycle day after day would drain an enormous amount of electricity.
But these technical inefficiencies are only the start of the problem— the project’s source of pumping power and its economic costs raise even deeper concerns.
The Source of Pumping Energy
The electricity for pumping comes from the grid, so its source varies with the time of day and season. Midday pumping could draw on solar and wind power, making it relatively clean. At night, however, it would almost certainly rely on coal-based electricity (with some contribution from wind when available), significantly increasing the project’s carbon footprint.
In January 2025, Deccan Herald quoted Karnataka’s Environment Minister saying: “The plan is to use the excess solar power in the daytime to pump water to the upper reservoir and then use the water to generate 2,000 MW during peak hours.” While the statement sounds reasonable, in reality grid dynamics and economics determine the source of electricity. The grid is a mix of coal, nuclear, hydro, and renewables like solar and wind, and pumping cannot be guaranteed to draw only “excess solar.” Seasonal variations (monsoon vs. summer) and daily demand fluctuations make exclusive reliance on solar highly unlikely.
The Cost of Pumping
The Ministry of Power’s Guidelines to Promote Development of Pumped Storage Projects (PSP), dated 10 April 2023, identify input power costs as a key barrier to economic viability. A project’s success depends heavily on access to low-cost electricity for pumping. This challenge, the guidelines note, may ease as cheaper solar and wind power become more widely available.
Currently, the cost of pumping is not included in the cost–benefit analysis submitted by the project proponent, KPCL, for forest clearance. This omission was flagged by Deputy Inspector General of Forests, Praneeta Paul, following her inspection of the Sharavathi LTM Wildlife Sanctuary in May 2025. KPCL’s calculated Cost–Benefit Ratio (CBR) of 74.65 is misleading, as it ignores the 2,500 MW of power required to pump water back to the upper reservoir. The excerpt from the report is below.
The Central Electricity Authority’s Guidelines for Formulation of Detailed Project Reports for Pumped Storage Schemes (July 2024) mandate that a detailed cost break-up be included in the DPR. Multiple RTI applications filed by citizens to access the DPR were denied. Even a subsequent request limited to specific sections of the report—including the cost break-up chapter—was refused as can be seen below.
The refusals were based on Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, as shown in the image below. Section 8(1)(a) pertains to the “security and economic interests of the State,” while Section 8(1)(d) relates to “commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property.” By invoking these provisions, access to the project’s cost details has been withheld. As a result, the project’s economic viability remains shrouded in secrecy, undermining both transparency and the public’s right to scrutinize decisions that carry profound ecological and financial consequences.
In conclusion, when critical operational and cost data is withheld, citizens are denied the ability to scrutinise claims, weigh ecological risks against economic benefits, and hold decision-makers accountable. Such opacity undermines the democratic process by shifting decisions into closed rooms, away from public oversight, and erodes trust in institutions tasked with safeguarding the public interest. Transparent evaluation of true costs—ecological, economic, and social—is the only way to ensure that our energy transition does not become an ecological regression
