·PIB·15 marks·250–350 words

Critically evaluate the regulatory and fiscal measures taken since 2023 to accelerate PSP development in India.

New · District CollectorCan you hold the district for 72 hours?Floods, a heatwave, an outbreak, a grievance queue. Take the decisions, see the consequences.Play →
In this answer
  1. Regulatory measures
  2. Fiscal measures
  3. Strengths
  4. Limitations
  5. Conclusion

Pumped Storage Projects (PSPs), or "water batteries", store surplus solar and wind power by pumping water uphill. The CEA estimates India needs 26.69 GW of PSP storage by 2031–32 [1]. Since 2023, the Centre has changed PSP regulation and finance. More projects have started construction, but commissioning is still too slow.

Regulatory measures

  • MoP Guidelines (April 2023): several ways of allotting sites, simpler Environmental Clearance, and exhausted coal mines allowed as sites [2].
  • Faster appraisal: the time for CEA approval of project reports was cut from 90 to 50 days, and off-stream closed-loop PSPs need no CEA approval [3].
  • Lighter environmental studies: MoEF&CC asks for one season of baseline data for closed-loop PSPs and two for open-loop [3].
  • TBCB guidelines (2025): competitive bidding to buy storage capacity [3].

Fiscal measures

  • No free-power or LADF obligations for PSPs [2].
  • No ISTS (inter-state transmission) charges for 25 years for projects awarded by June 2028, plus budget support for access roads and transmission lines [4].
  • No VGF (viability gap funding): the government says the levelised cost of storage is already viable [5].

Strengths

  • 11 PSPs (15,870 MW) are under construction and 6 more (8,140 MW) are approved [4].
  • The shift to off-stream sites limits damage to rivers [1].

Limitations

  • Slow commissioning: capacity rose only from 4,745.6 MW (2023) [6] to 7.43 GW (2026) [1]. That is under 1 GW a year, against about 3.5 GW a year needed.
  • Little reason for states to host PSPs: water and land are state subjects, and the Centre wants states to take the lead [7]. But the free-power waiver removes their main benefit.
  • Cost is still a barrier: the Standing Committee on Energy named high cost as the main reason storage is growing slowly [8]. The Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU) asked for a structured VGF framework and a 70–75% land-consent threshold [9].
  • Thin environmental checks: one season of data misses either the monsoon or the dry months [3]. Porous ground, such as old mine pits, can leak water through seepage [10].

Conclusion

Overall, the reforms have removed delays at the approval stage, but they have not yet sped up completion. Four steps would help: VGF only for approved projects that have not started, a share of revenue for host states, seepage studies matched to site risk, and a public tracker for each project. Together they would help PSPs support the 500 GW non-fossil target [1] and SDG-7.

Sources

  1. 1PIB: "Pumped Storage: Water Battery…" explainer (19 Oct 2026)26.69 GW PSP need by 2031–32; 7.43 GW operational; push for off-stream sites; 500 GW target
  2. 2Ministry of Power: Guidelines to Promote Development of Pump Storage Projects (10 Apr 2023)ways of allotting sites, mine-void sites, free-power and LADF exemption
  3. 3PIB: Progress of Hydro Pumped Storage Projects (PSP)50-day CEA approval, closed-loop exemption, baseline-data seasons, TBCB guidelines
  4. 4PIB: Ministry of Power release on status of PSPs (Jul 2026)11 PSPs/15,870 MW under construction; 6 PSPs/8,140 MW approved; ISTS waiver; budget support for infrastructure
  5. 5PIB: No plans to provide VGF for Pumped Storage Projects; levelized cost of storage is viableno VGF for PSPs
  6. 6PIB: Renewable Energy and Storage Issues (installed PSP capacity 4,745.6 MW)2023 baseline capacity
  7. 7PIB: PSPs can play crucial role in storing surplus green power, says Shri Manohar Lalrole of state governments
  8. 8PRS: Standing Committee on Energy — Performance Evaluation of Solar Power Projectshigh cost is the main barrier to storage
  9. 9PRS: COPU Report Summary — National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limitedstructured VGF framework; 70–75% land-consent threshold
  10. 10World Bank Group (IFC): Hydroelectric Power — A Guide for Developers and Investorsseepage risk on porous ground

More from this note