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.

In December 2025, governments gathered in Belém, Brazil, for the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) against a backdrop of record heat, torrential rains, and growing calls to move away from fossil fuels. The final outcome fell short of expectations for many. Fossil fuels were not mentioned in the agreed text, and the existing Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) still point to a dangerous 2.6°C warming trajectory, far above the level of 1.5°C called for in the Paris Climate Agreement and by science. 

Peter du Pont of SIPET Connect spoke with Frauke Röser, Co-Founder and Director at NewClimate Institute, about what COP30 revealed about the state of global climate politics, the emerging agenda of “transitioning away from fossil fuels”, and what all of this means for countries working on the energy transition, including in Southeast Asia. 

*** 

SIPET Connect: To start, could you tell us about NewClimate Institute and the work you focus on? 

Frauke: NewClimate Institute is a not-for-profit think tank that follows the international climate policy agenda. Our main focus has been on just transitions, the mitigation agenda, and the finance agenda, and we are also increasingly engaging on the issues of adaptation, resilience, and loss and damage. But the core of what we do is really around just transitions, mitigation, and the finance that goes with them. 

We are based in Germany with two offices, one in Berlin and one in Cologne. We are now roughly 50 people, with a very diverse team of more than 20 nationalities. We work on climate policy and transitions, and we track climate action, climate finance, and carbon markets. Article 6 and international carbon trading are also important strands of our work, and we follow those discussions quite closely at the COP. 

One of the things we are known for is the Climate Action Tracker, which looks at what countries are putting forward in the form of their NDCs and climate targets and relate that back to the Paris Agreement goals. This is one of the key inputs we provide at COPs. Beyond that, COPs are also a space for us to follow negotiations, exchange with peers, meet partners, and stay in touch with the international community. 

SIPET Connect: How did COP30 in Belém feel on the ground, especially for civil society and indigenous representatives? 

Frauke: In some ways, it was a relief. I was happy that, for the first time in several years, the COP was held in a democratic country again. Compared with Azerbaijan, Dubai, and Egypt, the visibility of civil society and particularly indigenous representatives was very high. That was really good to see. 

At the same time, you could really feel climate change in a very immediate way. It was extremely hot. I stayed a bit longer in Brazil, and the temperature difference coming back to Germany was a real shock for my body. During the COP, there were torrential rains that were so loud you sometimes could not have a conversation because of the sound of rain on the rooftops, and then there was the big fire. So it had all the drama of the climate crisis around it. In that sense, it brought the issue home very clearly. 

Unfortunately, though, the political outcome did not fully reflect the urgency that you could feel there. 

SIPET Connect: Going into COP30, what were you hoping to accomplish, and which issues were you following most closely? 

Frauke: I would not say we had targets in the sense of expecting the COP to suddenly deliver what is needed, given the climate crisis we are facing. In the current geopolitical setting, it was clear that the international community was not going to magically come together in Belém and decide on ambitious climate action. Especially with the United States pulling back in various ways, it was a difficult set-up. 

Personally, I was following three things most closely: the discussions on transitioning away from fossil fuels, the just transition agenda, and the related debates on levels of climate finance. Finance is always at the core of the negotiations and often the stumbling block that prevents things from moving fast and ambitiously. 

Other colleagues of mine focused more on Article 6 and international carbon markets, which we view quite critically, and on the overall picture of NDCs and where we stand relative to the Paris Agreement. 

SIPET Connect: Many governments updated their NDCs ahead of COP30. What did we learn from these new NDCs, and what does that mean for the energy transition? 

Frauke: You are right that some updated NDCs are more ambitious, and that is positive. But others are not. Some major economies, such as India, had not even submitted their NDCs. And the EU submitted its NDC very late, essentially a day before the COP. 

China’s NDC is somewhat more ambitious but still short of what we know the country can do, and compared to what we see happening in the real economy. That is an important point: NDCs are a useful political tool and framing, but they often do not portray reality very well. In some cases, like the EU, the real economy is moving much faster and in a much more ambitious way than what is written in the targets, and countries then overachieve their NDCs. 

Overall, in our analysis, the current NDCs will lead to a temperature increase 2.6°C by the end of the century, largely the same as last year, meaning that the new 2035 NDCs did not change the picture. That is pretty disastrous when you look at the scientific models. I cannot quote all the exact submission statistics off the top of my head, but I can say that many NDCs came late, some were not very ambitious, and some big emitters had not submitted at all. 

SIPET Connect: One of the initiatives that drew attention at COP30 was the “Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels” (TAFF) agenda. How do you see that process? 

Frauke: The TAFF initiative was indeed one of the more interesting developments. It was started by Colombia and at some point there were more than 80 countries behind it, including many European countries. 

There was quite a bit of hope that this initiative would find its way into a final COP decision—some kind of formal language or text. In the end, it did not. Fossil fuels were not even mentioned in the final outcome, which was disappointing. 

For me, the main take-away is that there is now a large and significant group of countries that clearly want to pursue an agenda of transitioning away from fossil fuels. They have organized themselves around this and are continuing. There will be a conference in Colombia early next year, co-hosted with the Netherlands, to follow up on TAFF. 

Many of the countries behind TAFF are fossil fuel importers. From an energy security and independence perspective, you would expect them to have a strong interest in accelerating this transition. On the other side, you have fossil fuel exporting countries who are trying to stall it. I do not think they can stop it. At best, they can delay it. That is really what they are aiming for. 

So even though TAFF did not make it into the final text of COP30 declaration, it has created a movement and a platform that I hope will grow into the kind of multilateral collaboration we need. 

SIPET Connect: Given the current geopolitical context, how do you see the role of COPs now? Can they still deliver meaningful outcomes? 

Frauke: If you think back, the Paris Agreement is almost a miracle. I do not think we would be able to negotiate such an agreement today. The idea that 194 countries would agree unanimously on something that ambitious seems almost inconceivable now. 

So we have to be realistic. Having a unanimous, highly ambitious agreement from 194 countries is extremely difficult. Even COP decisions are, to some extent, voluntary. That is why it is important to have issue-focused coalitions and initiatives like TAF. They allow a “coalition of the willing” to move ahead together. 

At the same time, COPs remain extremely important. They show that multilateralism is not dead. They provide a forum where all countries have to come together and, in a very transparent way, show the world where they stand. That visibility is crucial. 

You can also see that something is at stake simply by looking at who shows up. There are now many lobbyists attending COP. If nothing in these processes threatened existing business models, they would not bother to be there. So what happens at COP, including NDC updates and long-term strategies, does matter, because it shapes the direction of travel and the policy signals that follow. 

SIPET Connect: You mentioned climate finance and the need for just transitions. What did COP30 change on those fronts, and what still needs to happen? 

Frauke: On finance, there was some progress, particularly around adaptation finance, which I see as a positive step. But in terms of the overall provision of climate finance, there is still a long way to go. 

We need to move forward with reforming the international financial architecture, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, and making sure we are not only mobilizing more investment for green sectors but also redirecting investment away from brown sectors and into green ones. It is not enough to simply add green finance on top of continued fossil investment. 

On just transitions, there was more explicit recognition of what transitions mean for people, workers, communities, indigenous peoples. That social dimension was brought into the debate more formally, which I think is a success. But again, these are only starting points. The key is whether countries now turn that recognition into policies, finance, and support mechanisms that actually help people through the transition. 

SIPET Connect: The funding environments over the past year has been extremely challenging for many climate organizations. How has this affected NewClimate Institute and your peers? 

Frauke: It has been difficult. We did not have USAID funding ourselves, but we are impacted by the ripple effects. When U.S.-based organizations are hit by funding crises, they turn more to European funders. At the same time, many foundations with links to U.S. corporates have partly pulled back from climate work. And then you also have governments like Germany reducing some budgets. 

So the squeeze is coming from all sides: more competition for European and foundation funding, and fewer resources overall. Organizations like ours have had to adapt—rethinking funding models, being more strategic, and trying to protect the quality of our work while dealing with more uncertainty. 

SIPET Connect: Many of our readers are working on the energy transition in Southeast Asia. What should governments and private sector actors in this region take away from COP30? 

Frauke: I would highlight a few things. 

First, transitioning away from fossil fuels is a question of when, not whether. That message came through quite clearly, even if it is not yet reflected in the formal COP text. Countries that prepare early will be better off economically and socially. 

Second, the just transition is now more firmly part of the conversation. Governments need to think about what the transition means for people and communities, including indigenous communities, and to design policies that reflect that. 

Third, for public sector actors, it is important to have a longer-term vision of where the economy is going and what is actually beneficial for the country and its communities. When you look at the hard numbers, you usually find that moving faster on the transition is economically and socially more advantageous than delaying it. 

For private investors, everything depends on signals and the framework they operate in. They follow investment opportunities. When governments send clear, reliable signals about the direction of travel and put the right incentives in place, the private sector responds. COP30 did not fully provide that clarity, but initiatives like TAFF and the stronger emphasis on social and justice issues still send important impulses. 

SIPET Connect: How important are NDCs themselves as signals for investors, and where do they fall short? 

Frauke: I am not sure investors read NDCs in detail. NDCs are high-level political signals about where a country says it wants to go. They need to be underpinned by concrete policies, sectoral roadmaps, and regulatory changes that investors actually respond to. 

That said, NDCs and long-term strategies do matter. The level of lobbying around them shows that. If they were irrelevant, you would not see so many actors trying to influence them. They frame what comes next in terms of laws, regulations, and incentives. 

Ultimately, though, each country has to take these high-level targets and translate them into very specific plans and policies across sectors. That is what gives investors the clarity they need. 

SIPET Connect: In spite of the 2.6°C trajectory, you still sound cautiously hopeful. Where do you see signs of progress? 

Frauke: I would say I am worried and hopeful at the same time. Clearly, 2.6°C is not acceptable. But a few things give me hope. 

One is that multilateralism is still functioning on some level. Countries are still coming together at the COPs, and that matters a lot. It forces them to be transparent about where they stand, and it keeps the pressure on those who are blocking progress. 

Another is what we see in the real economy. In many parts of the world, the deployment of renewable energy and the falling costs of technologies show that the transition is happening and that it is unstoppable. 

And if you compare where we are now with ten years ago, we have moved the needle. In 2015 the current policies scenario led to 3.6°C of warming by 2100.. Now we are at 2.6°C. That is still far from where we want to be, but it shows that action makes a difference. 

Looking ahead, I think one of the important next steps is for more countries—maybe not all 194, but a critical mass—to adopt credible roadmaps for phasing down and phasing out fossil fuels. Even if it is “only” 80 countries out of 194, such roadmaps can send powerful signals to investors and real-economy actors. 

So yes, progress is too slow, and it is not yet enough. But things are moving in the right direction. Our task now is to speed up that movement and make sure that the transition is fair. 

Viet Nam, the Philippines and Indonesia have the resources and workforce to lead ASEAN’s clean energy future, but turning potential into progress hinges on creating stable, predictable policies and taking bold and near-term actions to secure investment and stay competitive.

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.