Empowering Southeast Asia's Green Future: The Vital Role of the ASEAN Power Grid in Regional Energy

As energy systems across Asia and the Pacific become more complex, the need for credible, grounded, and practical planning tools is growing. For many economies, the challenge is not only understanding long-term energy pathways, but also using those insights to inform real-world policy choices amid technological change, market uncertainty, and shifting geopolitical conditions.

In this conversation, Peter du Pont of SIPET Connect speaks with Robert Tromop of the Asia Pacific Energy Research Centre (APERC) about APERC’s role within APEC, the value of its Energy Supply and Demand Outlook, and why the real strength of scenario work lies not only in the final report, but in the process of building, debating, and testing assumptions with economies themselves.

***

SIPET Connect: Could you start by briefly introducing APERC and your role to our readers, and explain how your work supports energy transition planning across the region?

Robert: Asia Pacific Energy Research Centre (APERC) is a 30-year-old regional energy research institution whose mandate stems from the APEC Economic Leaders’ Summit in Osaka in 1995, where leaders recognized the need for stronger insight into energy trends and policy across the region.

Our role is to help foster understanding among APEC economies of global, regional, and domestic energy demand and supply trends, infrastructure development, regulatory reform, and related policy issues.

Our flagship publication is the APEC Energy Supply and Demand Outlook, which utilizes scenarios to project energy trends for each of APEC’s 21 economies and for APEC as a whole. We also publish the APERC Energy Overview, which is an annual update of each APEC economy’s progress in energy use dynamics, policies, and actions.

A second major part of our mandate is to support rational energy policy formulation and strengthen capacity building in energy research. Each researcher at APERC supports research both focused on their home economy, as well as on broader APEC topics. In addition, APERC runs training exercises in energy statistics, modelling, and energy security for officials from APEC economies.

The third major plank of our work is around energy security, economic growth, and environmental quality. We produce annual reports on coal, oil, and gas production and trade dynamics, and we are now adding a hydrogen report to that series. Our Oil and Gas Security Initiative also looks at security-of-supply challenges and includes tabletop emergency response exercises with economies.

SIPET Connect: APERC is closely linked to Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)’s energy architecture. How does that shape the way you work?

Robert: APEC is a consensus-based entity, so good ideas can certainly be put forward, but they need support from member economies in order to move ahead. That means the work is considered collective by design.

We also operate within an enduring ecosystem of expert groups under the APEC Energy Working Group. The main ones are the Expert Group on Energy Data and Analysis, the Expert Group on Energy Efficiency and Conservation, the Expert Group on New and Renewable Energy Technologies, and the Expert Group on Clean Fossil Energy. Those groups provide a strong technical foundation for exploring policy options.

There is continuity in the relationships. People change, of course, but these communities persist over time, and that matters. At the end of the day, relationships are what hold a lot of this together.

A key part of APERC’s longevity also comes from the consistent support of the Japanese government, which has funded APERC since its founding. That sustained commitment is a big reason we are able to keep doing this work year in, year out.

SIPET Connect: APERC’s Energy Outlook is widely referenced across APEC economies. Beyond the report itself, how do you see it functioning as a practical tool for policymakers and planners?

Robert: For me, the strength of the Outlook is that we conduct individual analyses for each of the 21 APEC economies, examining historical and projected energy demand, transformation, and supply across multiple scenarios.

We usually develop two main scenarios. One is a reference or baseline scenario — what will occur if current energy-related policies are maintained. The second is a scenario that reflects some kind of accelerated change, whether that is stronger electrification, a lower-carbon pathway, or some other policy objective.

What matters most is the engagement of officials from each economy throughout the modelling and production process. That engagement is itself a core deliverable. By testing modelling inputs, assumptions, and policy settings, and debating what is realistic, we can have greater confidence that the resulting scenarios are robust and credible.

The process also builds shared understanding and shapes how officials think about the range of available policy options.

SIPET Connect: One of the region’s big challenges is moving from long-term scenarios to near-term decisions, especially in a period of geopolitical volatility and energy insecurity. In that context, how can governments use outlooks like yours more effectively?

Robert: It is important to be realistic about technology change rates, economic potential, and the costs and benefits of each option.

I like to think that the narrative around the graphs is what really matters. The report can help inform what is possible, and it can encourage realism and balance across a portfolio of policy options.

At the end of the day, our role is to inform. Ultimately, our role is to inform. Political leaders will act according to the mandates and pressures they face, but our responsibility is to provide information and analysis that supports informed decision-making. So I would say the Outlook is most useful when it is treated not as a prescription, but as a grounded decision-support tool.

SIPET Connect: You also mentioned the Energy Outlook roadshow. Could you walk us through how that works in practice, and what makes it effective?

Robert: In practice, it is simply a series of visits to economy governments — and sometimes local research institutes — where we take officials through the modelled work.

We sit down with a broader group of officials than just those directly involved in reviewing the report. Often that includes more senior officials or ministers. We walk them through the analysis, answer questions, and talk through the implications.

While everyone looks at the plots, I think the real value lies in the narrative and the discussion around why and how different technologies and policies are driving change. That is where the key insights often are.

It is also a useful feedback loop. We hear what is front of mind for officials, and that often helps shape what we need to think more carefully about in the next round.

SIPET Connect: In your experience, where do economies typically struggle when using energy outlooks or modelling outputs?

Robert: I would not necessarily say they struggle. They make choices, and we add to the range of tools they may or may not use in making those choices.

The bigger challenge, in my view, is making sure the modelling remains realistic and grounded in actual economy conditions. That requires good insights into the driving forces behind change, the state and prospects of technologies, and the policy context in each economy.

It also requires enough resolution in the modeling for changes to be visible. If things are too aggregated, you lose a lot of practical insight.

So I think the issue is less about economies struggling with the tool, and more about making sure the tool itself is as credible and useful as possible.

SIPET Connect: Southeast Asia is especially diverse in terms of energy systems, policy conditions, and development pathways. How does APERC tailor its analysis to remain relevant across such different contexts?

Robert: The Outlook’s strength is really in the discussion and debate as we develop individual analysis and modelling results for each APEC economy.  That is what helps ensure we are reflecting actual issues and realities on the ground.

We do temper extremes of ambition in discussion, because realism matters. But working economy by economy gives us a much better feel for what is going on.

That is particularly important in Southeast Asia, because the region is so diverse. That diversity is also where there may be opportunities for greater collaboration. One obvious example is the ASEAN Power Grid. The region can potentially gain a great deal by sharing more effectively across borders, and one of the things the Outlook helps highlight is that regional value. APERC also benefits from the presence of visiting researchers from many Southeast Asian economies. Those researchers bring insights from their home economies and also have the networks to draw on specialist expertise and perspectives when needed.

SIPET Connect: How do you see APERC’s approach as distinct?

Robert: Different organisations are often looking at different parts of the elephant, so to speak. They may be trying to explore different issues, using different assumptions, or applying different methodologies.

What distinguishes APERC’s work, I think, is the degree to which we build it from the bottom up, economy by economy, in direct discussion with economy experts. That gives us a pretty good check on whether we are broadly getting it right.

We also benchmark our scenarios against others. That is useful because it helps us reflect on our own process and identify where we may want to improve. But I do not think it is necessarily helpful if all scenario work lines up perfectly. Different perspectives can expose different insights.

SIPET Connect: What modelling platform does APERC use, and what are the key ingredients that make this kind of outlook-driven planning process work?

Robert: We are currently finalising a transition to Low Emissions Analysis Platform (LEAP) as our main modelling platform. We had used different tools over time, depending on researchers and their backgrounds, but bringing things back to a common platform has been important for consistency.

LEAP is a very good platform for what we do. It is not a black box, and it is widely used by many others working in the space. Using a consistent platform also helps shorten our cycle time and lets us spend more time on what really matters — getting the assumptions and driving forces right.

To make this kind of process work, I think there are three main elements.

First, you need a consistent modelling platform.

Second, you need good insight into the driving forces, technology options, costs, benefits, and policy contexts in each economy — with enough detail for change to be visible.

Third, you need ongoing discussion with economy focal points. That back-and-forth is essential. Good modelling does not happen in isolation.

SIPET Connect: APERC is also known for its capacity-building role. How important is that dimension to your work?

Robert: It is very important. Building capacity is one of our key outputs.

We have around 18 researchers at APERC, including modellers, statisticians, and researchers with economy and sector expertise. People come and go quite quickly — often every couple of years — but that is part of the model. Researchers come here, learn a great deal in a well-connected international context, contribute to the work, and then often go on to bigger roles back home.

That is something we value. It means APERC is not only producing analysis, but also helping build capability across the region over time.

SIPET Connect: Finally, if another institution or economy wanted to adopt a similar approach, what would be most important to get right?

Robert Tromop: I would come back to the same fundamentals.

You need a consistent modelling platform.

You need strong insight into the state of technologies, the driving forces behind change, and the policy context in each economy.

And you need real discussion with economy focal points.

If I had to add one more point, it would be realism. As soon as you start fooling yourself, or assume something is right just because someone said it, you lose the value of the exercise. It is really about trying to get the equilibrium of insights right — getting the balance right, and getting some realism into the model.

That, in the end, is what makes the process useful.

As the energy transition accelerates, questions of inclusion are moving from the margins to the center of the conversation. But while awareness of gender in energy has grown, progress in translating that awareness into action and structural change remains limited. In this conversation, Peter du Pont of SIPET Connect speaks with Ellen Bomasang, a long-time energy and development practitioner, about how her work in the energy sector has evolved, and what it will take to move from token inclusion to a transition that is just and equitable by design.

***

SIPET Connect: Let’s start with your journey: how did you get into the energy sector, and how has your work evolved since you started in the early 1990s?

Ellen: I’ve been working in energy since 1992, straight out of college. I started at the Philippine National Oil Company, first with its petroleum subsidiary, Petron, and then in geothermal. After that, I pursued graduate studies in Japan in public policy, focusing on energy. And then I worked at the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan.

That’s where I was first assigned to work on renewable energy. My first assignment was a a JICA-funded solar project in Zimbabwe. At the time, solar wasn’t considered mainstream at all; it was mostly seen as something for off-grid communities. Coming from work on oil and geothermal energy, that was a completely new perspective for me.

Over time, I’ve seen renewables evolve from something niche and expensive into a mainstream source of power. Along the way, my work has spanned policy, finance, project design, and community engagement, but what has really stayed with me is the focus on access and equity, especially in rural and underserved communities.

And I think that’s where gender naturally comes in. When you’re working on access and community-level energy systems, you start to see very clearly that women and men experience energy very differently, and that those differences are often not reflected in how programs are designed.

SIPET Connect: You’ve also moved across different roles, geographies, and sub-sectors. How did you navigate that without getting locked into one track?

Ellen: It wasn’t automatic, I had to be quite intentional about it. When I moved to the U.S., I was working with International Resources Group, but they weren’t doing much in off-grid renewables, which was what I was most interested in. So, I actively looked for opportunities and moved to Winrock International, where I stayed for about 14 years.

SIPET Connect: Yes, and that’s where you and I first met and worked together—on the USAID Eco-Asia Clean Development and Climate Program, back in 2006, where I was leading the regional effort and you were running teams in Indonesia and Vietnam.

Ellen:  That’s right, this was the first large regional USAID program covering all of Asia and focusing solely on clean energy. During my time at Winrock, I did a lot of work on household energy, electrification, and community engagement, and it’s also where I started working more directly at the intersection of gender and energy.

After a while, though, I started feeling a bit pigeonholed into Asia-focused work. I wanted to branch out, both geographically and in terms of the types of roles I was taking on. So, I moved on, which led to more senior roles and opportunities to work in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East.

For me, it was really about actively seeking out new spaces rather than waiting for them to come.

SIPET Connect: The idea of a “gender-just energy transition” has gained traction in recent years. How have you seen the conversation on gender in energy evolve over time?

Ellen: Earlier, the conversation was much more about inclusion in a general sense. This is what we often referred to as a “just transition”—meaning not leaving anyone behind.

What I’m seeing now is a more intentional recognition that women and other marginalized groups have different needs, different perspectives, and face different structural constraints. It’s not just about including them, but also about understanding those differences and designing systems accordingly.

In countries that are actively pursuing this, you see efforts to increase women’s participation in renewable energy jobs, to promote STEM education for girls, and to embed gender considerations into policy and resource allocation. There’s also more focus on access, making sure energy services are equitable and actually address the burden of energy poverty.

It’s becoming more deliberate, but there’s still a long way to go in terms of implementation.

SIPET Connect: Your doctoral research looks at women of color in international development. What led you to focus on that?

Ellen: It was really inspired by my own experiences, as well as those shared by colleagues. My research looks at how women of color experience power, oppression, and privilege within the sector.

I focused on energy, which is still very male-dominated, and the health sector, which is more diverse, to draw some comparisons. I conducted in-depth interviews with women of color and also spoke with practitioners from different backgrounds to get a fuller picture.

What comes through very clearly is that there are multiple layers of barriers, and they’re not always visible in the way organizations think about inclusion.

SIPET Connect: From your experience, what are the most persistent barriers that hold women back in the energy transition?

Ellen: There are quite a few, and they tend to reinforce each other.

Education and skills are a big one. Women are still underrepresented in technical fields, and that carries through into the workforce. Even in renewables, representation is only around 30 percent globally, and lower in the broader energy sector.

Then, there’s how the labor market is structured. Technical, field, and leadership roles are still dominated by men, and hiring often relies on networks that women don’t have the same access to.

There are also structural biases in policies and institutions. Even when things appear neutral, they often don’t account for realities like caregiving responsibilities, which affect women disproportionately.

Time poverty is another factor. Women are still managing multiple roles, childcare, household responsibilities, and in some contexts fuel and water collection, which limits their ability to participate in training, employment, or entrepreneurship.

And there are social norms. In many places, technical roles are still seen as men’s work. I’ve seen programs where only men were recruited for technical training, even though women might have been more likely to stay and apply those skills locally.

Finally, workplace environments can be a barrier, especially in male-dominated settings where there may be safety concerns, lack of mentorship, or limited support systems.

SIPET Connect: What have you seen actually work in moving beyond awareness to real change?

Ellen: One of the biggest lessons is that it’s not enough to simply increase participation. That was the approach for a long time, train more women, include more women. and then consider the job done.

What works better is addressing the underlying structural issues. That includes changing hiring practices, creating mentorship opportunities, and improving workplace culture so that women can actually thrive once they enter the sector.

Engaging men is also critical. In some of the programs I’ve worked on, bringing men into the conversation, helping them understand how certain behaviors or norms affect their colleagues, has made a real difference.

There’s also a strong case for starting early. We’ve done work with girls at the middle school level, introducing them to engineering and technical careers and connecting them with role models. That’s often the stage where career aspirations start to take shape.

And something that’s often overlooked is leadership training. Many programs focus on technical skills, but women also need support in navigating workplaces, negotiating, and advancing into leadership roles. In one program in Nigeria, we trained over a thousand women in leadership skills, and it was very well received and later replicated elsewhere.

I believe it’s really about addressing the full spectrum, from education to workplace dynamics to leadership.

SIPET Connect: Is there a risk that gender remains treated as a side issue rather than being fully integrated?

Ellen: Yes, and I’ve seen that happen. When gender is treated as a separate track or an add-on, it can actually create resistance.

I remember working on a project in Mongolia where we included a gender track in an energy conference. Some participants questioned why it was there at all, saying there were more “serious” issues to discuss.

That reflects a broader challenge. Gender is often labeled as cross-cutting, but it’s not given the same weight as technical components. And when budgets are tight, it’s often the first thing to be cut.

Where it works better is when leadership takes it seriously. If the project lead or the funder prioritizes it and integrates it into the core design of the program, then it becomes part of how the work is done, rather than something separate.

SIPET Connect: How do you see the role of gender lens investing and related approaches evolving?

Ellen: There’s definitely more interest, but adoption is still uneven.

In some of the work I’m doing now, we’re trying to integrate gender considerations into procurement processes, for example, assessing companies based on how inclusive their workplace policies are. But even then, there’s a question of how many companies will actually meet those criteria.

The evidence is quite clear that more inclusive workplaces lead to better outcomes, but that hasn’t fully translated into widespread practice yet.

SIPET Connect: Finally, what is one key takeaway you would leave for practitioners working on gender and energy?

Ellen: The main takeaway is that this is not just about participation.

If the focus is only on adding women, without addressing the underlying structural and systemic barriers, then the impact will be limited. What’s needed is a more transformative approach, looking at how systems are designed, whether that’s financing, labor markets, or energy access, and making sure those systems enable women to participate meaningfully and benefit equally.

A gender-just energy transition is really about ensuring that women are not only included, but that they have equitable access to opportunities and a role in shaping the transition itself.

Southeast Asia’s transition is moving into a more practical phase: not just targets and announcements, but the work of making projects investable and preparing power grids to be ready to absorb more clean power. For the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), that means combining policy and technical assistance with development finance tools—and partnering with regional institutions to help move capital into real-world projects. 

In this conversation, Peter du Pont of SIPET Connect speaks with Sarah Love, who leads FCDO’s Climate, Energy and Nature Network in Southeast Asia. Sarah shares her views on a few areas where she is seeing traction: growing momentum behind the ASEAN Power Grid, the role of blended finance platforms like FAST-P, and why project preparation and coordination still matter as much as concessional funding. 

*** 

SIPET Connect: To start, could you briefly describe what FCDO is doing in Southeast Asia on climate, energy and nature, and your role within this work? 

Sarah: FCDO is the UK’s foreign ministry, and it also leads on international development. So our mandate is about advancing UK interests overseas—and that includes our development work as well as our climate, energy and nature priorities. The Foreign Secretary sees climate and nature as central to our foreign policy objectives. We won’t be prosperous or secure without action on climate change, and that conviction underpins much of what we do across the region. 

In terms of priorities, our work spans three or four broad themes. Energy transition is one. Nature and nature-based solutions, particularly mobilizing finance for nature, are another. Then there’s adaptation and resilience, and finally, expanding access to sustainable finance. 

My role is to lead our climate, energy, and nature network in Southeast Asia. I manage a small team of experts based in Singapore and Indonesia, covering areas such as energy, industrial decarbonisation, green finance, carbon markets, nature, and marine biodiversity. We work closely with UK embassies and high commissions across Southeast Asia, alongside climate-focused colleagues in those posts, to deliver on these priorities with partners across the region.  

SIPET Connect:  If we zoom in on energy, could you share a couple of partnerships or initiatives you’ve been involved in, or are watching closely, that you think have been particularly effective in moving the needle on the energy transition in Southeast Asia? 

Sarah: On energy transition, our focus is really on scaling renewables, using our development finance instruments and technical assistance programmes to support that, and to mobilise private finance into the transition. 

But I also think grids and interconnectors are critical enablers. A lot of development partners are looking at the ASEAN Power Grid and how to get behind that initiative. The idea of extending and connecting the grid across the region has been around for a long time, since at least the early 1990s, but it genuinely feels like there’s real momentum behind it now. 

We’re doing a lot with the ASEAN Centre for Energy and with ADB to explore how we can mobilize UK expertise in support of that. The UK has a long track record of electricity trading with our neighbours, and deep expertise, particularly on the regulatory side. So, a key question is: how do you design the regulatory environment for the power grid in a way that incentivizes private investment into big, complex interconnector projects? 

We’ve been working with ADB on the design of a financing facility that could attract other partners and mobilize private capital. We’re also supporting a few front-runner projects—for example, working with ADB to support Sarawak Energy as it explores potential regional connections, including interest in a Singapore–Sarawak interconnector. 

Another example is FAST-P, where we’re working closely with Singapore. Last year, we committed £60 million to FAST-P through British International Investment (BII), the UK’s development finance institution1. FAST-P is Singapore’s blended finance facility, and BII invested in the pillar focused on marginally bankable projects, where catalytic and blended finance can help bring in more commercial investors. 

SIPET Connect: Staying with ASEAN Power Grid, why do you think the momentum has picked up so much in the past few years? 

Sarah: It’s a good question. There are a few angles. 

Electricity trading with neighbours can be beneficial for energy security. It gives you more options, and we’ve seen that in the UK. It can also help with affordability, because being able to buy cheaper electricity from neighbours can bring costs down. And from a climate perspective, grids are important for enabling more renewables to be integrated into the delivery of electricity. 

There’s also a demand-and-supply story across ASEAN. Some countries have more available clean energy resources, and others have higher demand. Singapore is a good example, so interconnection helps. 

And I do think the prioritization of the APG by the ASEAN Secretariat and ASEAN leaders has mattered. Having successive ASEAN chairs pick this up—Malaysia, the Philippines this year, and then Singapore looking ahead—creates continuity. This is long-term; it needs sustained political commitment. But you can see movement: a pipeline of interconnectors is being developed, land-based and subsea, for some of the more complex connections are moving through pre-feasibility and feasibility work. 

SIPET Connect: Can you explain a bit more, especially how partners are coordinating around APG projects? 

Sarah: Coordination and information sharing are a big part of it, because the space is fragmented. 

ADB has set up the Partnership for ASEAN Connectivity on Energy (or PACE), which is focused on the ASEAN Power Grid. It brings together a wide range of partners, including donors, MDBs, DFIs, commercial finance partners, and others, to look at specific projects and work through what’s needed to move them forward, The PACE platform helps to clarify who’s funding what, where support is available, and how to link efforts up more effectively. This kind of platform matters when the scale of the challenge is so big. We need to work together to use resources efficiently. 

SIPET Connect: There’s a lot of debate and discussion about blended finance. Many people say it’s promising, but it also is clearly slower than we need and appears to be hard to scale up. From your perspective, what needs to change to mobilise the amount of private capital that the energy transition requires in Southeast Asia? 

Sarah: I think the challenge is that there are lots of project ideas out there, and in theory there’s commercial capital looking for projects, but there’s a big gap in the middle where they’re not matching up. 

Concessional finance helps bring projects closer to commercial bankability. In Southeast Asia we’re still learning what works best, what structures are attractive to commercial partners, and what needs to be demonstrated. 

For me, it goes back to the full project development pipeline. It starts with the enabling environment, regulations and policy frameworks that make investment possible. Then you need support for project preparation, because there’s a real gap before you even get to concessional finance: the preparatory work to get projects ready for investors. 

And then you have early-stage finance, growth finance, and eventually commercial finance and public markets. From the UK side, we have instruments that target different stages. BII sits somewhere in the middle, but we also work through multi-donor platforms like PIDG (with tools like InfraCo and other facilities), as well as UK Export Finance, and initiatives like Mobilist, which operates in the public markets space, supporting companies that are close to listing but need a bit more support to get there. 

So, I agree, projects aren’t moving through the pipeline as quickly as we’d like. But there isn’t a single fix. It’s about putting support in place at multiple stages, across the whole project lifecycle. 

SIPET Connect: You touched on knowledge and coordination platforms earlier. What role do you think knowledge platforms like SIPET can play, especially as programmes evolve or end? 

Sarah: I completely agree there’s a need for strong knowledge platforms. 

SIPET’s project mapping work, understanding who is doing what across the region, is really valuable. The more we know about what others are doing, the easier it is to align efforts, collaborate, and draw out best practice, and also to understand where things haven’t worked, which is equally useful. 

Good, accessible data on policy changes, enabling environment challenges, investment trends, and examples of what’s going well can help build momentum. There’s also a role for sharing learning from initiatives like FAST-P, how these platforms are set up, what challenges they face, so it’s simpler for the next person trying to do something similar. 

Peer-to-peer learning matters too: connecting regulators and practitioners, and bringing in expertise, including private sector expertise, whether that’s on the ASEAN Power Grid, storage, or other parts of the transition. The UK’s transition away from coal over the last decade has been steep, and there are lessons there as well. 

SIPET Connect: Before we wrap, when you look ahead a few years, what would “success” look like for FCDO’s climate and energy work in Southeast Asia? 

Sarah: For me, success looks like accelerated deployment of renewables, real action on the ground at scale, and clear progress on the ASEAN Power Grid, particularly seeing some of the ambitious front-runner interconnector projects move forward. 

Then there’s mobilizing finance. This means seeing concessional instruments catalyze more commercial capital, with investors feeling more confident about backing climate-focused, nature-positive projects. 

And finally, stronger regional cooperation, donors, MDBs and others finding ways to work together more effectively. In the current climate, that’s what we all need to do. 

***

1. https://www.bii.co.uk/en/news-insight/news/british-international-investment-commits-60-million-to-green-investment-partnership-to-close-the-climate-finance-funding-gap-in-south-east-asia/  

JETP Project Portfolio 

In Southeast Asia’s fast-moving energy transition, many of the most difficult decisions are also the hardest to discuss openly, across borders, and with the right people in the room. That’s where ETP’s SPARK initiative comes in: a deliberately small, curated, closed-door format designed to give senior policymakers the space to speak candidly about complex issues.

Peter du Pont of SIPET Connect spoke with Adritha Subbiah, Senior Programme Manager (Regional Programmes) at the Southeast Asia Energy Transition Partnership (ETP), hosted by UNOPS, about why SPARK was launched, what emerged from the first dialogue, and what SPARK hopes to unlock next.

***

SIPET Connect: To start, could you briefly describe the role of ETP in the regional energy ecosystem, and what you’re personally working on at ETP?

Adritha: Thank you, I really welcome the opportunity to step back and reflect on why we’re doing what we’re doing.

So ETP, the Southeast Asia Energy Transition Partnership, is essentially a pooled fund of governments and philanthropies with a mandate to support the energy transition in the region. We focus on Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines, and we also have a regional window of engagement. We work across four strategic outcome areas and provide technical assistance across these areas.

The first strategic outcome is aligning policy with climate commitments, so really looking at where countries are in terms of their NDCs and what they want to achieve through the energy transition and ensuring that the policy ecosystem supports that.

The second outcome is supporting investments coming in for renewables, energy efficiency, and increasingly coal phase-down, or fossil fuel phase-out.

The third is about grids: once you have more investments and more renewables, how do you ensure grids are future-proof? How do you modernise them, extend them, and look at interconnections?

And the fourth is just transition, recognising that for all of this to happen sustainably, people and the environment have to be central to decision-making around the energy transition.

That’s broadly the role we see ourselves playing in the region. We very much see ourselves as working in partnership with governments, being a trusted partner they can turn to for technical assistance around the energy transition.

SIPET Connect: SPARK stands for Sharing Perspectives to Advance Regional Knowledge, and as a metaphor, sparking new ideas and connections. What was the motivation for ETP to launch SPARK?

Adritha: A couple of things.

First, we have a regional window of engagement at ETP, and it’s slightly newer compared to our country programmes. We have in-depth country programmes in Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines. But the deeper we got into those engagements, we started to realise there are real opportunities for sharing lessons. Countries are at different starting points, but many of the challenges are similar, and there may be opportunities to collectively arrive at solutions that can work across contexts. That’s one reason behind SPARK.

The other inspiration came from the Wilton Park[1] format. It’s a place where they regularly convene a group of people to have targeted discussions, and it creates a trusted space. We wanted to replicate something like that for the Southeast Asian context. We were also lucky to be in that dialogue with key stakeholders from the region who were keen to see something similar in Southeast Asia.

And I think a lot of opportunities for capacity building and lesson-sharing can still feel quite “North–to-South” and top down in a sense.  What we wanted to create instead was a South–to South peer learning network, where examples and solutions are more contextual and relevant.

And SPARK also helps us understand what’s required in the region. It creates space to build relationships among key policymakers and officials, understand pain points and sensitive topics, and then think through how we address them through our programming. That’s the intention behind SPARK.

SIPET Connect: You’ve chosen a very specific format, bringing together a small group of senior policymakers and experts in a confidential setting. Why this format, and how is it different from the many workshops and conferences in Southeast Asia?

Adritha: It was very intentionally designed.

We wanted to target policymakers, mid to senior-level people who have a clear sense of what’s needed and can shape things when they are back at their desks. It’s intentionally small and curated.

We also wanted to create an intimate, closed-door setting, a safe space, so we can have very open conversations. The idea is to tackle complex issues: topics that aren’t yet mainstream but really need to be discussed in the broader energy transition context.

Having a focused discussion helps in some elements of capacity building, but it also helps us come out with a clearer sense of where things stand, what needs to be done, and what ETP and others can do to support.

And another element we’re really keen on is building peer networks. Whether that’s a WhatsApp group or simply introductions across countries, we want policymakers to feel comfortable reaching out to each other. Ideally, a policymaker from the Philippines should be able to pick up the phone and call a counterpart in Indonesia about similar challenges. That’s the kind of environment we want to foster through SPARK.

SIPET Connect: The first SPARK dialogue focused on carbon markets and carbon pricing for the energy transition. What feedback did you get from participants from Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines, and what insights stood out?

Adritha: It was quite surprising to hear how interested policymakers are in this topic, the level of interest and the momentum building around it.

The EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, emissions trading systems, these are very current issues that countries in Southeast Asia are trying to grapple with. What was really clear to us is that there’s an opportunity to ensure that the mechanisms being developed at the national level can “speak to each other,” because there’s more value you can unlock through that.

The timing of the dialogue also felt important. It was very topical, and there was a real need for the conversation. The way it was structured, with an element of capacity building, but also open discussion, worked well.

And maybe that’s the niche for SPARK: we can try to pick topics that have strong national ownership but also implications at the regional level.

SIPET Connect: A key output is the policy brief developed after each SPARK dialogue. Why is that important, and how do you see SPARK feeding into what ETP does next?

Adritha: The policy brief is our way of sharing the insights we gather through a closed-door convening. That’s a really important part of SPARK, because it puts learning into the public domain. And as a UN-hosted partnership, that’s incredibly important for us.

It also gives us an opportunity to continue working on areas that are identified for support. It informs our technical assistance programmes, and it can also help inform what our partners are doing or what we choose to do with our partners.

Just one example: following the last SPARK dialogue, we’ve continued conversations to explore the potential for ASEAN-level engagement on carbon markets and also looked at the Philippines’ ASEAN chairmanship this year and whether that creates a policy window. So that’s a very current example of how we try to take SPARK forward.

SIPET Connect: The second SPARK dialogue focused on financing the phase-down of coal. How do you view this problem and why is SPARK the right way to tackle it?

Adritha: The topic came from one of our regional projects, TRANSEND (Transition to End Coal), which looks at the asset-level coal phase-down. We were in discussions with a national utility in one of our focus countries that was keen to explore early retirement options. Our role was to provide technical assistance on what that could look like repurposing options, and critically, the financing of an early retirement.

We learned a lot from that engagement.  While it did not ultimately proceed to a transaction, the engagement generated critical insights into why early retirement remains so difficult to replicate in the region.          

What we also see is that there are many conversations happening around coal phase-down. Some policies have been put into the public domain, but there are also less visible conversations about how to keep commitments in place, how to ensure coal moratoriums hold, and how to explore early retirement without jeopardizing energy security     .

And I feel like policymakers don’t always have a safe space to have a very open discussion about this. That was the intention behind focusing SPARK on coal phase-down financing.

The financing aspect is also where things tend to get stuck. Policy is, of course, trickier to discuss across countries, and sometimes more sensitive. But I think everyone can agree that financing is a key bottleneck, and something we need to address if we want to advance energy transition in the region.

So, I’m really hoping we can create that safe space where policymakers are honest about the challenges, and we can think through solutions together.

SIPET Connect: Given SPARK is closed-door, how can knowledge platforms like SIPET complement the dialogues and help extend the impact?

Adritha: Because the dialogue is closed-door, it’s really important to think through how we disseminate what we can share publicly, like the policy brief that comes out of SPARK.

Since the discussions aren’t in the public domain, we need to ensure that what is in the public domain is widely circulated among policymakers, civil society, technology providers, and others.

At ETP, we’re not always the best at that, because our focus is really on government and policymakers. So, I think platforms like SIPET can help extend SPARK by disseminating those learnings, reaching the wider ecosystem, and hopefully bringing in partners who can continue to work on the issues that are crucial for the energy transition in this region.

SIPET Connect: Looking ahead two to three years, what would success look like for the SPARK initiative, and what message would you leave readers about why these convenings matter?

Adritha: Success for us is that SPARK is recognised as a safe space that convenes policymakers, so it becomes a well-used platform that policymakers can turn to for capacity building and for building peer networks around energy transition topics.

Another aspect of success is that SPARK continues to inform the work ETP does, but not only ETP. We see ourselves as part of a wider ecosystem, so ideally it also helps inform the work of others on the energy transition.

It’s a very curated, intimate convening, and for a busy policymaker, I think that’s exactly what they need. You need the headspace, a conducive environment, and a peer network to talk through these issues. Ideally, that’s what we’re creating through SPARK.

[1] Wilton Park is an executive agency sponsored by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) that convenes small, high-level policy dialogues designed to enable candid exchange and build trust among decision-makers.