Connecting the Dots: Regional Grids and National Reforms Driving Clean Energy

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. 

Clean energy events are proliferating across Southeast Asia, but few are deliberately designed to foster candid, peer-to-peer exchanges among those shaping national energy policies. The Regional Energy Transition Dialogue (RETD), organized annually under the project Clean, Affordable, and Secure Energy for Southeast Asia (CASE), aims to fill that gap.

For the past three years, the RETD has been convening political partners from Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Viet Nam for two to three days of discussion under the Chatham House Rule.[1] The RETD shows that purpose-driven convening is a strategic tool in its own right: by bringing together the right people, focusing on timely themes, and creating a trusted space, it enables Southeast Asian policymakers to share candidly, learn from one another, and take those lessons back home—creating impact that extends well beyond the event itself.

In this Transition Toolbox conversation, Peter du Pont of SIPET Connect speaks with Sascha Oppowa, Project Director at GIZ [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit] [SO1]  Thailand, about how the Regional Energy Transition Dialogue works, what makes it effective, and why purposeful stakeholder convening can be as powerful a tool as any technical intervention.

****

SIPET Connect: Sascha, could you start by describing your role at GIZ and the work you do related to the energy transition in the Southeast Asia region?

Sascha Oppowa: In my role as Project Director at GIZ, I have the pleasure of being responsible for overseeing the Clean, Affordable, and Secure Energy for Southeast Asia (CASE). CASE focuses on four countries—Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Viet Nam—and it has a regional component that supports the ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] vision for a regional power grid. The project is implemented as a consortium, with GIZ in the lead, and local partners in each country, as well as two international partners based in Germany. Together, we combine research, dialogue, and capacity-building to support to advance a sustainable energy transition in the region. Besides this, we are also running this wonderful platform, The Southeast Asia Information Platform for Energy Transition (SIPET), to foster transparency and mapping in Southeast Asia.

SIPET Connect: The Regional Energy Transition Dialogue has become a core part of CASE. What is it, and what does it aim to achieve?

Sascha Oppowa: The Regional Energy Transition Dialogue, or RETD, is an exchange and learning platform that we have now organized for three consecutive years. Its purpose is twofold: first, to share state-of-the-art research and evidence on the energy transition—whether developed within CASE or contributed by other partners; and second, to create a safe, closed-door space for peer-to-peer exchange among government officials and key stakeholders from our four partner countries. What makes RETD unique is that these participants might not otherwise meet; it allows them to step outside domestic silos, learn from each other’s approaches, and discuss both successes and challenges. Over time, this has helped build trust and foster an atmosphere where candid conversations can take place, which is critical for advancing the region’s energy transition.

SIPET Connect: How do you curate the discussions and select the topics?

Sascha Oppowa: We have been experimenting with both the format and the content over the three events we have held so far. We have always linked the theme to our ongoing workstreams: the very first edition of the RETD was a trial run in the sense of testing whether the idea of bringing together partners from different countries in Southeast Asia to openly share perspectives and experiences would work as envisioned. Building on these learnings, the second year allowed us to refine the concept further, bringing everyone together under the theme of “Electricity Market Designs for Renewables”, which provided a more focused structure for exchange and collaboration.

This year’s theme for our RETD was geopolitical developments and their implications for national energy systems, and this generated strong engagement. Participants discussed issues such as supply chains for critical minerals, the role of China in the region, and the implications for energy security in their countries. Post-event feedback confirmed that the theme closely matched their priorities. More broadly, I believe this approach ensures participants receive up-to-date insights while also creating common ground for them to reflect on and compare their national experiences.

SIPET Connect: The Dialogue is held under the Chatham House Rule. Why is that important?

Sascha Oppowa: What has proven crucial is not so much the formal application of the Chatham House Rule itself, but rather the creation of a framework and shared understanding of how to design a space, an environment, and atmosphere that is conducive to open exchange—where participants feel at ease to speak and reflect together. Government officials and our political partners rarely have many opportunities to meet across borders in such a setting and to engage in candid conversations with one another. With the RETD, we seek to provide exactly this: a room that fosters trust, encourages the sharing of both achievements and challenges, and allows participants to recognize that many of their peers in other countries are navigating similar complexities in the energy transition.

SIPET Connect: What have been the key takeaways or outcomes from these dialogues?

Sascha Oppowa: The RETD is not designed to deliver immediate policy changes. The impact is often subtle but long-term. An official from Indonesia, for example, might hear how the Philippines is tackling a particular challenge and adapt that approach at home.

Two lessons stand out for me:

The first is that trust is built over time: you need repeated engagement to create the openness we now see in our RETD meetings.

The second is that shared challenges unite people: knowing that others face similar barriers makes cooperation easier and more natural.

SIPET Connect: With so many clean energy events in the region, how do you ensure the Regional Energy Transition Dialogue stands out?

Sascha Oppowa: For me it depends on the purpose of each event. Large conferences such as ADB’s Asia Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) are excellent for networking and broad thematic discussion. Our RETD, however, is designed very differently. It is highly targeted, limited to our political partners and key counterparts in each country, and the agenda is shaped around their specific needs and interests. That focus, combined with a closed-door setting, makes the discussions more relevant, candid, and ultimately more valuable for the participants. In that sense, I think RETD fills a unique niche rather than competing with broader events.

SIPET Connect: Could you describe the participant mix and how the sessions are structured?

Sascha Oppowa: We typically invite about 20 political partners—representatives from ministries, utilities, or government-linked agencies and a similar number from our CASE consortium, which includes local think tank partners and international experts.

We also bring in external speakers. This year, for example, the International Energy Agency’s Singapore office presented on topics such as grid flexibility and supply chain challenges. The Dialogue usually runs over two to three days. We would begin with scene-setting inputs from partners and experts, followed by breakout sessions and peer exchanges. This mix of evidence-based inputs and interactive dialogue creates both knowledge sharing and candid peer-to-peer conversations.

SIPET Connect: Have any new partnerships, initiatives, or changes emerged directly from the Dialogue?

Sascha Oppowa: I would not claim that the Dialogue leads directly to policy changes. However, it creates the relationships and shared understanding that make cooperation easier. Participants’ feedback has been overwhelmingly positive, especially this year, particularly on the value of connecting with peers from other countries whom they might not otherwise meet.

SIPET Connect: Was there anything from this year’s Dialogue that particularly stood out to you?

Sascha Oppowa: What stood out to me this year was how visibly the trust between participants across borders had grown over the course of the Dialogue. On the first evening, during an informal welcome, you could still see people clustering within their country groups. By the end of the two workshop days, those boundaries had broken down—participants from different countries were sitting together at lunch, engaging in breakout sessions, and sharing openly with each other. That shift is exactly what RETD is meant to achieve: moving beyond national silos and creating genuine peer-to-peer exchange. Seeing that transformation unfold in just a couple of days was very rewarding.

SIPET Connect: Looking ahead, what is your vision for the Regional Energy Transition Dialogue in 2026 and beyond?

Sascha Oppowa: As CASE, we would like to hold at least one more Dialogue next year. After three years, I am confident we have found a formula that works: relevant themes, a trusted space, and a strong team to deliver it.

Beyond CASE, I would be happy to see the concept and format adapted elsewhere – but would think this is not necessarily easy to replicate. Building the trust we have now took years of day-to-day work with partners in each country. Without that foundation, the openness we see at the Dialogue, I could imagine it being difficult to achieve.
 

--

For more information CASE’s RETD 2025, please visit Geopolitical Currents and Energy Shifts: Southeast Asian Leaders Convene for Regional Energy Dialogue in Bangkok - CASE for Southeast Asia.

[1] https://www.chathamhouse.org/about-us/chatham-house-rule

As Southeast Asia scales up its energy transition, understanding the landscape of energy investments is more important than ever. Across the region, governments, development partners, and philanthropies are implementing hundreds of energy transition projects amounting to billions of dollars in technical assistance and investment. This raises two important questions for us: 

1. Are these efforts aligned, effective, and reaching the right places?   

2. And is it possible to avoid the inevitable overlap between donor activities in the Energy Transition space? 

To help answer these questions, the Southeast Asia Information Platform for the Energy Transition (SIPET) recently completed an update of its flagship Project Mapping Tool. The result: a refreshed, regional view of more than 480 projects and more than USD 45 billion in clean energy investments—much of it focused on technical assistance and capacity building. 

But this is more than a numbers exercise. The updated data provides insight into regional progress on the energy transition, technical and programmatic opportunities for greater collaboration, and the significant benefits of making energy transition efforts more visible and coordinated. This article highlights lessons from SIPET’s latest donor mapping effort and argues that a more collaborative, shared approach to data on donor assistance can reduce duplication and help accelerate Southeast Asia’s transition. 

Why Project Mapping Matters 

The energy transition is not about just infrastructure. It’s also about technical assistance to build capacity, and the need for an efficient, collaborative and coordinated approach. With growing interest from funders and implementers, there’s a clear need for a shared platform that can track activity, identify synergies, and make information accessible to all stakeholders in the energy transition. 

The SIPET Project Mapping Tool helps meet this urgent need. The tool covers projects in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nnam and provides a user-friendly way to understand what types of activities are under way, where resources are flowing, and where support may still be needed. 

Our recent update was not just technical. It also had a strategic objective—aiming to build trust, transparency, and a shared understanding and knowledge base among energy transition stakeholders in Southeast Asia. 

Figure 1. Projects in the SIPET Project Mapping Tool by Country and Project Status 

What the Data Show 

While the scale and pace of energy transition activities is accelerating, the updated SIPET mapping reveals a few key takeaways: 

1. Funding at both the national and regional levels is becoming more transparent. Based on more than 480 projects recorded on SIPET (excluding JETP), most of the budget has been implemented in Indonesia; followed by projects with a regional remit; followed by projects focused on the Philippines, Viet Nnam, and then Thailand.  

2. Apart from the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) funding, investments can be grouped into two broad areas:  

a) projects related to renewable energy (RE) Infrastructure and variable renewable energy (VRE); and 

b) support for policy advocacy, technical assistance, and capacity building. 

Figure 2. Budget share by theme: Policy Advocacy, Technical Assistance & Capacity Building, Infrastructure Investment, and JETP across 481 energy projects in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. 

Figure 3. The budgets of the three project themes recorded in SIPET, broken down by country. 

c) Overall, more than USD 15 million of funds recorded in SIPET are directed toward policy advocacy, technical assistance, and capacity-building initiatives, while more than USD 13 million are directed toward infrastructure. Infrastructure development in Indonesia, Viet Nnam, and Thailand accounts for a larger share of funding compared to funding for policy advocacy, technical assistance, and capacity-building projects, while the opposite trend is observed at the regional level and in the Philippines.  

d) Strong collaboration is essential to enhance public awareness, support planning, and strengthen accountability. For example, through collaboration with local partners, the commitment of USD 15 billion in energy-climate funding under JETP is transparently recorded and presented on SIPET. 

An important potential benefit of the SIPET Project Mapping tool is that it can identify opportunities to strengthen donor alignment, improve the completeness and availability of data, and expand focus to emerging priorities such as a Just Transition, inclusive financing, and subnational implementation. 

What We Learned from the Process 

Behind the updated numbers lies a significant effort to compile and validate project data from dozens of sources. Through this process, several lessons emerged: 

1. Structured, accessible data enables faster updates and better visibility. Where donors and partners provided well-organized project lists or shared database links, integration into the SIPET tool was quicker and more accurate. 

2. Manual data entry is still needed in many cases, particularly where information is not readily available online. While tools like web scraping and translation helped streamline some parts of the process, human verification remains essential. 

3. Donor collaboration makes a difference. The participation, and sharing of data by, donor coordination groups such as the Vietnam Energy Partnership Group (VEPG) demonstrates how strong engagement can lead to better regional insights and easier data integration. 

These lessons point to a shared opportunity: if donors and partners can align around simple data-sharing practices, everyone benefits from clearer insights and more informed decision-making. 

For Donors: Why Contributing to SIPET Matters 

The Project Mapping Tool is designed as a supportive platform for donors, not an evaluation tool. By participating, donors gain: 

1. A neutral, regional space to share and visualize their contributions 

2. Improved visibility of their work alongside peers and partners 

3. The ability to identify alignment opportunities and avoid duplication 

4. Assistance in presenting and communicating project data, reducing the need for internal resources to create their own visualizations and summaries. 

Rather than build separate tools or websites, donors can use SIPET to complement their communications and reporting efforts, while contributing to a stronger regional ecosystem. 

Conclusion: From Fragmentation to Shared Purpose 

Southeast Asia’s energy transition is dynamic, diverse, and full of opportunities. With more than 480 projects mapped, the SIPET Project Mapping Tool offers a snapshot of progress and a foundation for greater collaboration. 

We invite donors, implementers, and partners to explore the map, share your projects, and be part of building a more transparent, inclusive, and effective energy transition. 

Visit www.sipet.org to learn more. 

Rising energy demand, rapid urbanisation, growing populations, and shifting geopolitical dynamics are placing immense pressure on Southeast Asia’s energy systems. The need for secure, affordable, and sustainable energy has never been more urgent. The International Energy Agency (IEA), a central force in shaping global energy policy — has responded by establishing its first Regional Cooperation Centre outside of Paris, choosing Singapore as its base. 

In this edition of SIPET Connect, Maximilian Heil, Project Coordinator CASE at GIZ, speaks with Sue-Ern Tan, the Head of the IEA Regional Cooperation Centre, about the Centre’s strategic priorities, the evolving nature of energy security, and how Southeast Asia can shape a secure, affordable, and sustainable clean energy future through regional collaboration.  

In this conversation, Sue-Ern Tan offers a front-row view of how multilateral institutions are rethinking their role—working more directly with countries, gathering region-specific data, and enabling cross-border solutions like power trade and clean energy financing. IEA’s move to establish a regional hub in Singapore signals a shift from its global advisory role to one that also builds local and regional partnerships. With energy transitions gaining urgency and complexity, Southeast Asia needs not just capital and technology, but coordination and capacity. This new Centre aims to deliver exactly that—embedding support where it’s most needed, and making sure the region’s voice is heard in shaping the global energy agenda. 

**** 

SIPET Connect: To begin, could you briefly introduce yourself and your role at the IEA? 

Sue-Ern Tan: I’m the Head of the IEA’s recently-opened Regional Cooperation Centre in Singapore. This is the IEA’s first office outside of its headquarters in Paris, and it serves as a platform to deepen our collaboration across Southeast Asia. While we have a broad global mandate, our initial focus here is clearly on ASEAN — supporting countries in the region to navigate the challenges and opportunities of the clean energy transition. 

SIPET Connect:  The IEA has long played a key role in global energy governance. How has its focus evolved in recent years, particularly in light of energy security concerns and the global emphasis on the clean energy transition? 

Sue-Ern Tan: The IEA was established over 50 years ago to coordinate collective responses to oil supply disruptions among member countries. That mission remains relevant — we activated those emergency response mechanisms most recently after Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine and the subsequent energy crisis in 2022. But the world has changed dramatically over the course of the IEA’s history. 

Today, the IEA works across all fuels and technologies, supporting governments and industry to build sustainable, affordable, and secure energy systems. For example, at the Global Summit on the Future of Energy Security, which we co-hosted with the UK Government in April, two major themes emerged: first, that energy security is no longer just about oil and gas but includes critical minerals, supply chains, and electricity system reliability; and second, that multilateral cooperation is more essential than ever.  

SIPET Connect: Why was Southeast Asia chosen for the IEA’s first regional office — and why Singapore specifically? 

Sue-Ern Tan: Southeast Asia is a fast-growing region and a major driver of global energy trends. In fact, the region is expected to account for around a quarter of future global demand growth, second only to India. What’s more, eight out of the ten ASEAN member states have committed to net-zero targets. So, the region is both strategically important and full of potential. 

Having this regional presence allows us to work much more closely and responsively with countries on the ground and Singapore is very well-located to access the rest of the region. 

SIPET Connect: What are the key objectives and priority areas for the Regional Cooperation Centre in Singapore? 

Sue-Ern Tan: We focus on three core thematic areas: 

First, we assist efforts to accelerate renewable power and cross-border power trade — particularly through support for the ASEAN Power Grid and guidance on how to integrate variable renewables.  Second, we work on the scaling up of clean energy technologies — including hydrogen, ammonia, CCS, nuclear, and innovations related to AI and data centre demand.  And finally, we provide analytical support for efforts to unlock finance for clean energy—notably through work like our Cost of Capital Observatory, which identifies region-specific barriers to investment. 

And then, underpinning all of this, we work in the areas of capacity-building and development partnerships.  We engage with partners in the region on capacity building and training, especially for Southeast Asian policymakers and regulators across many different topics; and we also work through partnerships and the convening of events, to help align efforts across institutions and stakeholders in the region. 

SIPET Connect: How does your work in the Regional Cooperation Centre complement the efforts of the IEA’s work more globally? 

Sue-Ern Tan: It’s very much a joint effort. The Regional Cooperation Centre is small—just five people—but we’re fully integrated into the broader IEA network. We collaborate closely with the analytical teams in headquarters, whether on global energy modelling, data, or market and policy insights. 

For instance, the IEA’s upcoming Global Hydrogen Report will feature an ASEAN-specific deep dive. Our role is to gather the most accurate and regionally relevant data, ensuring that Southeast Asia’s developments are reflected in global discourse. We lead regional projects and analysis while also feeding those regional insights back into the IEA’s global work. We are also building on the already excellent work happening at the IEA to deliver more efficiently and effectively in this region.   

SIPET Connect: Where do you see the biggest opportunities for accelerating the clean energy transition in Southeast Asia? 

Sue-Ern Tan: A connected regional power grid is absolutely essential for Southeast Asia, where electricity demand is growing faster than anywhere else. Interconnections will allow countries to move electrons more efficiently, match supply to demand centres, balance variable renewables, and unlock cross-border trade. 

Financing poses a significant barrier, particularly for interconnections, which is why IEA is preparing a report focused on how to mobilise investment in this area. Political will is also crucial, especially at the bilateral level, to align technical and regulatory frameworks across borders. 

We recognise the need to address a range of topics to help countries achieve their energy transition goals. Energy efficiency is the primary fuel and we have a large work programme in Southeast Asia focusing on accelerating efficiency across buildings, appliances, transport, and industry. The region’s key role as a manufacturing hub with excellent technological and natural resource potential is also a key opportunity to encourage the development of a variety of energy supply chains and technologies from solar and wind to hydrogen and batteries.  

Finally, we at the IEA understand the critical importance of data. It underpins effective policy making and we have seen how eager countries in this region are to enhance their capacity on data and energy statistics in order to help shape and measure their transition goals.   

SIPET Connect: Collaboration is key in scaling up the energy transition. Who are the IEA’s key partners in the region, and what are some upcoming areas of focus? 

Sue-Ern Tan: We work closely with regional bodies like the ASEAN Centre for Energy (ACE) and the ASEAN Secretariat and all of their member states, as well as multilateral organisations including UN ESCAP, ADB, World Bank, and UNOPS-ETP. Our engagement extends to various regional governments and local contacts, including embassies and development partners. There are a number of active philanthropies, think tanks, NGOs, academic institutions and others which are both local and regional doing really interesting and important work as well. The new regional centre is looking to build new and continue long-established trusting and collaborative relationships. Our goal is to complement, and not to duplicate, existing initiatives.  

For example, we collaborate with UNESCAP on capacity development for regulators, and with the project CASE on the Regional Energy Transition Dialogue. We’re always asking: Where can the IEA add the most value? 

We also work based on demand from countries. For example, we collaborate with Southeast Asian countries to understand their energy goals, what it is they need to achieve those goals and where the IEA is best equipped to support. 

SIPET Connect: What are the biggest challenges in achieving a just energy transition in Southeast Asia? 

Sue-Ern Tan: From an equity standpoint, one ongoing challenge is energy access—not just whether electricity reaches people, but whether it’s reliable, clean, and affordable. Clean cooking is another area that deserves more attention in this region, particularly for women and rural communities. 

Fossil fuels will remain part of the mix for some time. The question is: how do we manage the energy transition responsibly? How do we support affected communities, improve methane management, and ensure fairness in job transitions? 

The IEA recently helped launch a Global Commission on People-Centered Clean Energy Transitions, which encourages countries to embed social equity, access, and participation into their transition strategies. We’re working to bring those principles into this region’s policy frameworks. 

SIPET Connect: How can platforms like SIPET and regional partnerships contribute to addressing barriers to transition? 

Sue-Ern Tan: Platforms like SIPET are vital for promoting transparency and open access to data and research, supporting knowledge transfer and capacity building, and bridging the gap between analysis and action by helping stakeholders move from policy aspiration to implementation. 

Ultimately, no single actor can drive the energy transition alone. Practical, inclusive, and collaborative efforts are key to make the energy transition real on the ground. We must build on the existing work of partners and make sure we are providing the most impact for countries in this region. 

SIPET Connect: Finally, what message would you like to share with SIPET’s community of energy transition professionals? 

Sue-Ern Tan: Keep going. The scale of both the opportunity and the challenge in Southeast Asia is immense. Success here is not optional; it’s essential for the global energy transition. 

But let’s also remember: a successful energy transition isn’t just about hitting emissions targets. It must also make energy more secure, more affordable, and more reliable. If we keep those pillars in mind, we’ll be better equipped to build transitions that truly work—for governments, people, and businesses. 

***** 

About Sue-Ern Tan 

Sue-Ern Tan is the Head of the International Energy Agency’s Regional Cooperation Centre in Singapore. She brings extensive experience in international policy and development, and leads the IEA’s regional engagement in Southeast Asia. She leads a team focusing on accelerating renewable energy, scaling clean technologies, and unlocking regional collaboration to drive a just and secure energy transition. 

About the IEA 

The International Energy Agency (IEA) is an autonomous intergovernmental organisation that works to shape a secure and sustainable energy future for all. Founded in 1974, the IEA provides authoritative analysis, policy recommendations, and capacity-building support to its members and partners around the world. The IEA's new Regional Cooperation Centre in Singapore supports Southeast Asia and beyond in advancing energy security, clean energy innovation, and regional integration. 

Reframing the Energy Transition: What Southeast Asia Is Learning from Transition Finance 

As Southeast Asia strives to decarbonize its economies while maintaining economic growth and prioritizing energy security, transition finance has emerged as an essential tool. Transition finance is designed to enable high-emitting sectors to embark on credible pathways toward net zero. It meets companies where they are, not where they should already be. 

SIPET Connect’s Transition Finance Series, which we have run over the past six months, has featured interviews with six leading experts working across finance, policy, and clean energy. The interviews shed light on what this financial instrument means in practice. Drawing from their insights, this article examines how Southeast Asia is defining transition finance, why it is rising in importance, what challenges remain, and what it will take to make transition finance truly impactful. 

What Is Transition Finance—and How Is It Different from Green or Climate Finance? 

As global pressure to decarbonize economies increases, the financial sector is starting to differentiate between various approaches to climate-aligned capital. While green finance focuses on funding clearly defined low-carbon activities, and climate finance often supports mitigation or adaptation in vulnerable regions, transition finance specifically targets carbon-intensive sectors and helps them move toward net zero through credible, science-based plans.  

Melissa Brown, Director at Daobridge Capital, explained that “Transition Finance was born out of necessity—to fill the gap left by green finance for economies that need incremental steps, not leaps.” Unlike green finance, which is typically project-based and emphasizes low-emission investments, transition finance focuses on companies and sectors that remain carbon-intensive but are committed to time-bound decarbonization strategies. 

Jason Lee, Head of Sustainability at CIMB Thai Bank, described transition finance as a dual-pronged approach: managing emissions within financial portfolios while supporting real-economy clients through their transition. “It’s about helping companies move from where they are to where they need to be,” he said. 

Instruments such as sustainability-linked loans (SLLs) and transition bonds are gaining traction in the region. These allow flexibility in the use of proceeds, provided that borrowers commit to measurable emissions or energy efficiency improvements. These loans (SLLs) are typically governed by standards like the GHG Protocol and the ISSB’s IFRS S2.1 

Why Transition Finance Is Gaining Ground 

The interviews revealed a shared understanding that transition finance plays a vital role in the global decarbonization effort. In Southeast Asia, where fossil fuels continue to dominate energy supply and industrial activities, achieving a successful transition requires more than just green finance. 

“We can’t ignore large, high-emitting companies if we want a real energy transition,” said Sarinee Achavanuntakul, Managing Director of Climate Finance Network Thailand (CFNT) “We need to create financial tools tailored for established players in sectors like energy, transport, and heavy industry—not just for startups and new green ventures.” Transition finance enables these firms to retire carbon-intensive assets, invest in cleaner technologies, and realign with national decarbonization goals. 

This approach recognizes that most companies in heavy industry cannot “go green” overnight. “It’s not just about financing projects but fostering partnerships where both parties are committed to meaningful environmental outcomes,” said Jason Lee. Anouj Mehta, Director of ADB’s Thailand Resident Mission added, “Transition finance offers a powerful way to integrate commercial and development finance at scale.” 

Ultimately, the appeal of transition finance lies in its pragmatism. It accepts that change takes time but demands accountability along the way. By offering a flexible yet disciplined framework, it allows Southeast Asia to pursue decarbonization without sidelining the economic realities of its most critical sectors. 

Challenges and Lessons Learned 

A key challenge is credibility. Putra Adhiguna, Managing Director at Energy Shift Institute, cautioned, “We see a lot of transition plans that don’t align with emissions realities or lack transparency.” He emphasized the need for robust, independently verified plans with clear trajectories, milestones, and capital strategies. 

Tailored solutions are also essential. What works in Thailand may not work in Indonesia or Vietnam. Financial products must reflect each country’s energy mix, policies, and industrial structure. 

While blended finance can help de-risk investments, it isn’t a universal fix. Melissa Brown observed, “Concessional capital can help mitigate project risks, but providers need assurance that execution risks can be properly managed and priced.” 

Deni Gumilang, Sustainable Energy Finance Lead at GIZ Indonesia, emphasized the role of public finance in attracting private capital: “We are trying to integrate applicable structures that can attract private investment… mechanisms by which public finance can de-risk private investment are essential.” He noted that while blended approaches are gaining ground, policy coherence and regulatory clarity remain key barriers to scale. 

Regulatory uncertainty adds complexity. Frameworks for taxonomies, carbon pricing, and disclosure remain in development. Several of the interviewees called on governments to move faster to match investor expectations. 

Sarinee highlighted political realities: “You cannot depoliticize transition finance. In regions where fossil fuels are tied to state revenues or elite interests, credible plans must navigate entrenched systems.”  

Capacity and data deficiencies continue to pose challenges. Many companies lack the internal expertise to develop credible transition plans or monitor financed emissions. Lishia Erza, CEO of Candra Naya Lestari, stressed the importance of involving micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) and local communities: “Finance must shift away from top-down models and support those most affected by climate impacts.” 

Where Do We Go from Here? 

The path forward for transition finance in Southeast Asia is clear yet challenging. 

First, the region must transition from one-off pilot projects to scalable, institutional financial strategies. This involves defining what “credible transition” means at the country level, aligning it with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and creating taxonomies that reflect regional realities. As Anouj Mehta noted, “DFIs are essential in creating viable financing structures that balance risk and return… [they] could try and mobilize concessional finance, provide risk guarantees, and technical assistance to make these projects bankable.” This kind of support is crucial for de-risking first-mover projects and building national transition finance frameworks that can attract both domestic and international capital.  

Second, financial institutions should invest in internal capacity—not only in risk analysis but also in helping clients navigate transition pathways. This is particularly crucial for MSMEs and mid-sized firms, many of which lack the technical expertise to develop and implement transition plans. “Offering guidance on taxonomies or bond principles builds trust and long-term value,” said Jason Lee. 

Third, alignment of policy and regulatory frameworks will be vital. Enabling frameworks for carbon pricing and mandatory disclosure must keep pace with market innovation. Melissa Brown highlighted that global narratives are evolving, and Southeast Asia must “break away from the one-size-fits-all playbook” to create market-appropriate solutions. 

Lishia Erza added that supporting a just and inclusive transition requires more than just financial flows. “We need hands-on technical assistance and community-level engagement to make these plans real,” she stated. “Otherwise, transition finance risks reinforcing existing inequalities rather than alleviating them.” 

Finally, Southeast Asia requires more regional platforms for peer learning and innovation. As Putra Adhiguna observed, the transition “requires as much cooperation and trust-building as it does capital.” Regional coalitions and open-data tools, like the Southeast Asia Information Platform for the Energy Transition (SIPET), can enhance transparency and coordination.  

Conclusion 

Transition finance offers Southeast Asia a pragmatic pathway to decarbonize from within, rather than around, its economies. The insights from these six interviews suggest that the region is ready to lead—not by replicating models from the Global North, but by designing its own future, anchored in credibility, inclusion, innovation, and peer-to-peer learning. 

Explore the Interviews: 

Putra Adhiguna, Energy Shift Institute – November 2024 

Jason Lee, CIMB Thai – December 2024 

Melissa Brown, Daobridge Capital – January 2025 

Sarinee Achavanuntakul, Climate Finance Network Thailand (CFNT) - February 2025

Anouj Mehta, ADB – March 2025  

Lishia Erza, Candra Naya Lestari and Deni Gumilang, GIZ Indonesia – June 2025