Knowledge Hub

In October 2025, Bangkok hosted its first-ever Bangkok Climate Action Week (BKKCAW), a nine-day citywide initiative featuring more than 270 events across 60 venues. Conceived as a civic movement rather than a conventional conference, the week aimed to take climate action beyond expert and institutional circles, drawing in citizens, artists, youth, entrepreneurs, and policymakers alike.

Peter du Pont of SIPET Connect spoke with Leo Horn-Phathanothai, Founder and Executive Director of JUTI (Just Energy Transition Incubator) and a recently appointed Board Member of Greenpeace Southeast Asia (GPSEA).  JUTI organized BKKCAW in collaboration with a diverse and inclusive set of partner organizations. In the interview, Leo reflects on the ideas behind the event, the response it generated, and what it reveals about how Southeast Asia can build civic power and culture around the energy transition.

***

SIPET Connect: To start, could you share a bit about your background and how you came to work in energy, climate, and development, and how JUTI fits into that journey?

Leo: I’ve spent just over two decades at the intersection of environment and development, first as an environmental economist, then as a diplomat, a think-tank director, and in other technocratic organizations. What’s guided me from the start are two enduring passions: a love of nature, and an outrage at the persistence of poverty in a world of abundance. Those two things—love and outrage—shaped my sense of social justice and put me on this path.

In the first half of my career, I was often the lone environmentalist inside development institutions, trying to bring climate change and environmental issues into the center of the development agenda. In the second half, I worked from the other side, within environmental organizations, trying to bring people to the center of climate and environmental work. In short, always bridging climate and development concerns.

I founded JUTI early this year with the aim of localising ambitious action on climate and nature. We do three things: support high-potential local actors to grow their impact; orchestrate collaboration across a fragmented ecosystem; and work on the deep leverage points for systemic change, that is, narrative and culture, to help shift expectations of what’s possible. Bangkok Climate Action Week brings all three of those strands together in one space.

SIPET Connect: The inaugural Bangkok Climate Action Week was a huge success. What was the core vision behind it?

Leo: The vision is to build a movement. We wanted to take climate out of its narrow “climate box” and place it in a whole-of-society context. The goal was to activate people, to bring them into the climate action arena and give them greater ownership of a transition that is already underway. The question is no longer how to start the transition, but how to make sure it leads somewhere good and how to ensure it delivers benefits for everyone instead of being captured by incumbents.

That requires building civic power. We need strengthened public participation and engagement to shape the transition, build political demand for better, and redefine what kind of future we want to create together.

SIPET Connect: As an active participant in Bangkok Climate Action Week, one of the striking features I observed was how inclusive it felt. How did you design something that reached beyond the usual policy and industry audiences?

Leo: It started with how we built it. This wasn’t a top-down exercise led by one person; it was collective from the start. We created a diverse steering committee that included educators, architects, artists, policy experts, former ministers, agency heads, and youth activists. I’d tell them: if Bangkok Climate Action Week could reflect the diversity of this group, it would succeed. The heavy lifting was done by a multi-talented core team constituted by a similarly diverse group of individuals from diverse organizations, including III Muses, PXP Sustainability, Creative Migration, and Saunter Media.

We also designed it for those who are usually excluded, including children, older people, and those outside formal climate or policy spaces. It’s the same principle as city planning: if you design a city for the most vulnerable, you create one that works better for everyone. Radical inclusion was our design principle, and it led to richer conversations and new forms of collaboration.

SIPET Connect: What did you take away from the results?

Leo: Honestly, it exceeded my expectations. We focused on accessibility, bringing climate issues to people instead of expecting them to come to us. The outcome spoke for itself: around 270 events, and over 77 000 visitors. Every room I walked into was full. That level of turnout told us something powerful: there’s readiness, and a real hunger for this kind of civic space.

SIPET Connect: Why do you think the response was so strong?

Leo: Because people already care. Surveys everywhere show that concern about climate change is extremely high, often 90 per cent or more, but actual engagement remains low. That’s not apathy; it’s a lack of opportunity. When you open the space, people walk in. Thailand is no exception.

SIPET Connect: What were some of the most memorable outcomes or new collaborations that emerged?

Leo: The most important outcome was the participation itself, the diversity and energy of people who stepped forward for the first time. That, to me, signals the start of something bigger: a civic awakening, even a regional one, where Asian voices and experiences take center stage.

There were also concrete results. One was the Climate Lighthouse, a partnership between Shanghai Climate Week and Bangkok Climate Action Week—two Asian cities that are both vulnerable to climate impacts and leading in innovation. Another was the Invest for Nature coalition, which brought together around 20 civil society organizations in Thailand working on nature finance. The aim is to equip capital with a better lens for identifying high-integrity investments in nature, distinguishing what’s real from what’s greenwashing.

We also ran a youth innovation challenge, where teenagers aged 13 to 18 presented collaborative ideas for climate solutions. It flipped the typical “Shark Tank” model—judges weren’t extracting value but nurturing it. The quality of ideas was incredible, and we’re even exploring turning it into a counter-cultural television program next year that celebrates cooperation over competition.

Another important seed was the Bangkok Climate Action Declaration, which emerged spontaneously as a civic call to political leaders. It’s a first step toward building sustained public demand for stronger action.

SIPET Connect: The Clean Air Act was passed unanimously in Parliament soon after the event. Do you see a connection?

Leo: I think it reflects a shared moment. We’re moving from an era of complacency to one of agency. People are fed up with pollution and inequality; they expect better. Bangkok Climate Action Week tapped into that energy. People didn’t come because of personalities; they came because the space was opened up for them, and they were ready to use it.

SIPET Connect: Looking ahead, how will you build on this momentum next year?

Leo: We approached this first edition as an experiment, to test whether creating a new kind of civic space would draw people in. It did. Now we can be more ambitious.

Next year, we’ll double down on culture as the common language of action. Culture connects who we are with the future we want, and it’s our most abundant and endlessly renewable resource. We want to cultivate a culture of care, courage, and collaboration.

We’ll also activate the community of action that has formed. Success won’t mean having more events; it will mean stronger ones. I’d rather see fewer, co-designed sessions that bring together communities and deepen collaboration.

And we’ll keep the experimental spirit alive. Bangkok Climate Action Week will remain a laboratory, an open space to test ideas. Some concepts already emerging include using football as a platform for unity and creating new spaces for dialogue between citizens, businesses, and policymakers. The focus is collaboration, not confrontation.

SIPET Connect: The event drew significant participation from across Southeast Asia. How do you see its regional role evolving?

Leo: We always saw Bangkok Climate Action Week as a regional platform. For the first edition, we needed to ground it locally and ensure it felt authentic in Thailand. Even so, it turned out to be vibrantly regional. My guesstimate is that roughly a third of the events, about 80 to 100, had an explicit regional dimension.

Next year, we want to bring regional partners directly into the steering committee and co-create from the start. The experience has shown that we can be more confident in our regional ambition. People across Southeast Asia felt that this was an Asian moment, not just a Bangkok one.

SIPET Connect: Many of our readers are development partners working on the energy transition. What lessons can they take from this experience?

Leo: The first lesson is trust, trust people, and resist the urge to over-format. We didn’t prescribe themes or sectors; we simply created the space. More than 95 per cent of proposals aligned with the spirit of what we were trying to do. That says a lot about latent understanding and readiness.

The second is humility. Experts, myself included, often think we have the solutions, but that mindset can disempower others. Our role should be to equip people with tools, knowledge, and evidence, and then trust them to find their own paths.

Third, create space for experimentation. Development work is often too risk-averse. Transformation requires a portfolio that balances predictable, low-risk projects with space for new, uncertain ideas. That’s where innovation comes from. China’s development success was rooted in local experimentation that was scaled up; there’s a lesson there for all of us.

Finally, changing the narrative matters. One of our priorities for next year is to run coordinated communications campaigns with partners, pooling resources and aligning messages to shift public understanding of the energy transition. Culture and communication are what make participation, finance, and political will possible.

For decades, regional power trade in Southeast Asia remained more aspiration than action. Today, the ASEAN Power Grid is beginning to move from plans on paper to projects on the ground. In this Transition Toolbox conversation, Peter du Pont of SIPET Connect speaks with Keiju Mitsuhashi, Director for Southeast Asia & Pacific Energy Sector at the Asian Development Bank (ADB), about the momentum behind the ASEAN Power Grid and ADB’s work with the Philippines on renewables, grid modernization, and enabling infrastructure. Keiju shares his experience and reflections on how regional interconnections, domestic grid development, and national reforms are advancing together—linking ASEAN’s ambitions for increased power trade with the Philippines’ drive for more clean energy from geothermal, and offshore wind resources, as well as smarter, greener, and more resilient power grids. 

**** 

SIPET Connect: To start, could you introduce your role and focus at ADB?

Keiju Mitsuhashi: I am the Director for Energy Sector for Southeast Asia and the Pacific at ADB. I took on this role about two years ago after my assignment in Viet Nam. Our work is about delivering prosperity, inclusiveness, resilience, and sustainability across Asia and the Pacific through financing concrete energy projects, advancing complex reforms, and promoting innovative solutions.

SIPET Connect:  Regional power trade has long been on the agenda, but it has only recently begun to move from talk to action. The ASEAN Power Grid (APG) has been central to these discussions. What’s driving the new momentum toward making it a reality?

Keiju Mitsuhashi: The idea of an APG has always made sense but turning it into reality is complex. Grid-to-grid interconnection requires aligned regulations, grid codes, standards, and legal frameworks, and adding power trading creates another layer of difficulty. That is why progress has taken time, but it is now happening. The ASEAN Interconnection Masterplan Study (AIMS) III plan identified 18 interconnections in the region; nine are already connected, although many of these will need to be upgraded. We financed the West Kalimantan–Sarawak link in 2016 and saw a quick payback. The Lao–Thailand–Malaysia–Singapore pilot traded 100 megawatts across four countries and is now expanding to 200 megawatts. We also financed the Monsoon Wind Power in Laos—600 megawatts for export to Viet Nam—which is source-to-grid rather than grid-to-grid, but still part of the APG story.

What’s different now is the combination of technology, demand, and policy. Renewables are far cheaper than when earlier power plans were drawn up. Power demand in Southeast Asia could triple by 2050, driven by the growth of population, air-conditioning, data centers, and EVs, among others. And there is stronger political direction: leaders have agreed that the region’s grids should be connected by 2045. Singapore’s announcement that it will important six gigawatts of clean energy created a credible off-taker and shifted the market conversation. Some countries have access to abundant, low-cost renewables, and others do not; in many cases, imports are the least-cost way to bring in green electrons.

SIPET Connect: How do governments balance energy security with reliance on imports?

Keiju Mitsuhashi: Energy security comes first. In the 1990s and 2000s, industrial growth was primarily driven by coal-fired power plants in Southeast Asia, and many of those plants are still relatively young. That can’t continue if countries are serious about achieving net-zero emissions and about staying competitive for exports and attracting foreign investments in the region. Clean energy is a core part of an energy security strategy now. That’s why we’re moving from planning to implementation. You’ll see that reflected in ministerial meetings this year.

SIPET Connect: Where does ADB fit into the ASEAN Power Grid, as it moves forward?

Keiju Mitsuhashi: While we coordinate at the ASEAN level, we also engage with sub-regional work within the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS), the Brunei Darussalam–Indonesia–Malaysia–Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA), and the Indonesia–Malaysia–Thailand Growth Triangle (IMT-GT), because trades usually start bilaterally, gradually, and expand from there. We have a cooperation arrangement with Singapore’s Energy Market Authority on clean-energy imports. At the ASEAN level, we and the World Bank are launching the APG Financing Initiative with the ASEAN Centre for Energy and the ASEAN Secretariat. The goal is to mobilize funds, including from the private sector, alongside sovereign lending because a large share of the APG will need to be privately financed.

SIPET Connect: What has to change to bring more private investment into power generation and interconnections?

Keiju Mitsuhashi: For generation, you need bankable power purchase agreements (PPAs), whether through auctions or feed-in-tariff schemes before power markets develop. Transmission is tougher. It’s regulated and mostly state-owned in Southeast Asia, and third-party access is still limited. Merchant models common in Europe may not be practical here. Realistically, however, you’re looking at public–private partnerships (PPPs) and availability-based structures for subsea cable projects. Further, interconnections must ensure grid stability. Domestic grid strengthening is critical. Grid links can increase vulnerability if they’re not planned carefully, so sequencing matters.

SIPET Connect: How will the APG Financing Initiative actually work, and how do you plan to de-risk?

Keiju Mitsuhashi: We’re coordinating project preparation and financing and setting up a financiers’ forum that brings in development financiers, commercial banks, developers, and philanthropies. De-risking happens in three places. At the policy level, we use policy-based lending to support reforms. In preparation, we can fund the up-front work—such as undersea surveys, environmental and social assessments, and legal and regulatory reviews—often with public or blended finance that can be refinanced later. And during construction, tools that ADB and multilateral development banks have can help manage cross-border and political risks so investors and other lenders can come in with confidence.

SIPET Connect: Let’s turn to the Philippines, where ADB has been very active over the past few years. What does partnership look like today?

Keiju Mitsuhashi: We have revamped our partnership with the Philippines in the energy sector. In 2001 we supported the Electric Power Industry Reform Act, which shifted the sector to a privatized structure. Today the country targets 35 percent renewables by 2030 and 50 percent by 2040. Policy signals are important, but not sufficient; public-sector interventions are needed alongside private investment. We’re supporting climate policy reforms with the Department of Energy (DOE), and other departments. We’re preparing a derisking facility for geothermal exploration and drilling, with financing targeted for 2026, because exploration risk has stalled development for two decades. We’re expanding energy access with results-based approaches for communities that still lack reliable electricity. We’re helping public-building energy efficiency retrofits to build market capacity and demonstrate models. On offshore wind, we’ve supported  Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to issue the department regulation on environment compliance certificate. We’re also working on common-use offshore wind ports, so developers have the infrastructure they need. On transmission, we’re exploring how public action can accelerate smart and green grid upgrades so renewables can be integrated at scale.

SIPET Connect: Offshore wind in the Philippines is getting a lot of attention these days. How do you see it unfolding?

Keiju Mitsuhashi: The Philippines has some of the strongest offshore wind resources in Southeast Asia, with estimates ranging from 50 to more than 150 gigawatts of potential. DOE have already issued notice to auction to subscribe 3.3 gigawatt of offshore wind power by 2028–2030, marking an important step forward. For developers, certainty around ports and support infrastructure is critical. Those facilities are likely to be publicly financed as common goods, which reduces demand risk, lowers overall project costs, and helps make bids more competitive for both consumers and industry.

SIPET Connect: Stepping back, what are your big lessons for the region’s transition?

Keiju Mitsuhashi: First, the energy trilemma—security, access, and affordability—has to anchor decisions. Energy transition itself cannot be the only or ultimate goal. Second, there’s no transition without transmission; clean power generation only works if the grid can carry it. And while renewable generation costs are down, integration is not free. Once variable renewables rise above roughly a third of the mix, the grid systems need storage, smarter operations, and more capacity to avoid curtailment. Third, the transition may not always look cheap, but the alternative—sticking with fossil fuels—raises costs and undermines competitiveness. The question isn’t whether we pay; it’s whether we build systems that are cleaner, more secure, and ultimately better for economies in the long run.

The Thailand Country Climate and Development Report (CCDR) charts a strategic path aligning climate action with national development. It urges rapid adaptation and emission reduction to safeguard growth, manage risks, and unlock green opportunities across Thailand’s comparative advantage sectors, emphasizing that inaction costs far outweigh investments.

ASEAN stands at a defining moment, balancing geopolitics, a just energy transition, and regional integration through power interconnection. IRENA’s updated socio-economic footprint report finds that under a 1.5°C Scenario, Southeast Asia’s GDP could grow 2.6% annually (2023–2050), driven by investment, trade, and social policies enhancing resilience and inclusiveness.

This joint report by ERIA, ADB, and METI examines the evolving role of transition finance, technology, and policy in supporting the decarbonisation of Southeast Asia’s emissions-intensive sectors such as power and heavy industry – the so-called ‘high emissions’ and ‘hard-to-abate’ sectors, respectively. These sectors are highlighted in high-level roadmaps that identify key investment areas for a pragmatic energy transition.

In Southeast Asia, unlocking private capital for urban decarbonization requires practical finance and delivery mechanisms that work within existing institutions. In this Transition Toolbox conversation, Peter du Pont of SIPET Connect speaks with Marc S. Forni, Lead Urban Specialist at the World Bank, about the World Bank’s Regional Low Carbon Cities (LCC) Program. 

The LCC Program advances a replicable approach—using performance-based contracts, “stapled” lending through state-owned and commercial banks, and clear rules for crediting—to help cities and large asset owners implement high-return investments at scale. 

What makes this approach compelling isn’t just its technical design—it’s the way it threads finance, regulation, and real-world incentives into something cities can actually use. As regional actors look for scalable solutions to climate action at the urban level, this is a toolkit in the toolbox worthy of careful examination! 

*** 

SIPET Connect: To begin, what is the World Bank’s Regional Low Carbon Cities Program, and why does it matter for the energy transition? 

Forni: The LCC Program is a practical playbook for getting proven technologies—like efficient lighting, rooftop solar, modern HVAC, and fleet electrification—into public and quasi-public facilities at scale. In settings where municipal borrowing is limited, we position cities and real estate operators as “brokers” of performance-based contracts with energy service companies (ESCOs), while partner banks provide the lending. That lets projects move without new public debt, and it creates a path that can be replicated across multiple cities and asset classes. 

SIPET Connect: You often say cities can broker rather than borrow. What changes when you take that view? 

Forni: It widens the solution set. Instead of asking whether a city can take on debt, we focus on structuring shared-savings contracts that are bankable on their own merits. The city sets performance requirements; an ESCO delivers and is paid from verified savings; and a state-owned or commercial bank provides a loan backed by the project cash flows. Instruments like receivables assignment or fiscal intercepts help de-risk repayment. Because many of these upgrades generate double-digit returns, the model is attractive to both public asset owners and lenders. 

SIPET Connect: You have worked in multiple countries. Why has Thailand become a focal point? 

Forni: Thailand offers an enabling environment: strong interest from asset owners, active financial institutions, and a clear framework for greenhouse-gas crediting through the Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization. We also have a very collaborative set of counterparts—led by the Department of Climate Change and Environment—working alongside utilities and regulators to align technical, legal, and financial pieces. Earlier work in Vietnam helped shape the model; Thailand provided the conditions to pilot the approach at scale. 

SIPET Connect: What are the key building blocks of the model? 

Forni: There are three pillars. First, off-balance-sheet delivery using performance-based contracts and standardized procurement. Second, a pathway for carbon crediting, so that verified emission reductions can be monetized. This provides a meaningful uplift to project returns. Third, a supportive market infrastructure: sandbox pilots, clear licensing where needed, and fit-for-purpose accounting and disclosure, so financial institutions can participate with confidence. 

SIPET Connect: What have you learned from working with industrial zones and service providers? 

Forni: Scale is achieved by standardization. When audits, contracts, and MRV are consistent across dozens or hundreds of sites, large firms and their ESCO subsidiaries can participate at volume, and smaller providers find opportunities through subcontracts. Equally important, we’ve clarified procurement and contracting pathways, so that public agencies can use shared-savings arrangements where appropriate—always in line with regulations and in coordination with the utilities. The through-line is collaboration and clarity, not one-offs. 

SIPET Connect: What does the initial Thailand pipeline look like, and how do carbon revenues fit in? 

Forni: Subject to the usual approvals, the current proposal includes a lending line through a partner bank with a significant share earmarked for physical investments. Early tranches prioritize rooftop solar across public buildings, LED streetlighting, and industrial-estate solar expansions. Together, these could deliver substantial electricity savings and measurable emissions reductions. Where issuing of carbon credits is appropriate, verified reductions can be sold forward—creating a steady revenue stream that improves project economics while maintaining a conservative approach to quantification and reporting. 

SIPET Connect: You mentioned sandboxing. What kinds of pilots are you exploring? 

Forni: I can give you two examples. On the finance side, we’re working with banking partners on underwriting verified emission reductions and piloting forward purchase contracts. On the market infrastructure side, we’re collaborating with the exchange on structured forward auctions. Everything is done transparently, within the relevant regulatory frameworks, and with careful attention to accounting and disclosure. 

SIPET Connect: What’s the appetite you are seeing from the private sector? 

Forni: It’s strong when the offer is clear. Asset owners want a short list of bankable options, indicative capex, expected savings, and a straightforward path to funding and delivery. We’ve held information sessions and are coordinating with banking associations so that lenders can approach their clients with standardized packages. Adding a well-governed crediting component can lift returns further, while standardized documentation brings transaction costs down. 

SIPET Connect: How portable is the approach across Southeast Asia? 

Forni: The toolkit travels, but the first steps differ by market. In some places, distributed solar leads; in others, energy efficiency or waste-to-energy pilots make more sense. We also collaborate closely with financial authorities—central banks, securities regulators, and finance ministries—so that solutions integrate smoothly with domestic financial systems. The aim is to complement ongoing efforts and help local institutions scale what already works. 

SIPET Connect: What makes you confident this can scale beyond a single country? 

Forni: We’re not betting on unproven technology. We’re assembling well-tested practices—shared-savings contracts, standardized MRV, forward procurement, and transparent crediting—into a coherent package that institutions can use. When the pieces are aligned, projects move quickly and reliably. That’s what gives us confidence in the model’s scalability. 

Southeast Asia’s electricity demand is set to double by 2050, with solar and wind now among the most cost-competitive options. This IEA report assesses the region’s readiness to integrate higher shares of variable renewables, outlining key challenges, opportunities, and actions for policymakers and utilities through 2030 and beyond.

The Study on the Roadmap for Multilateral Power Trade in ASEAN analyses how cross-border electricity trading can strengthen regional energy security, affordability, and sustainability. It outlines institutional, regulatory, and technical pathways, providing guidance for ASEAN Member States to design policies and mechanisms that support a phased approach—starting with subregional markets and building toward an integrated ASEAN-wide power trade system.