You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

February 28, 2018

Merger Control in Thailand’s Energy Sector

Informed Counsel

As policies are initiated under the Thai government’s Thailand 4.0 initiative, laying the groundwork for economic growth over the next two decades, the country’s energy demands will continue increase. The Ministry of Energy’s Thailand Power Development Plan of 2015 (PDP2015) outlines the framework for dealing with the increase in energy needs, including an expansion of installed electricity generating capacity. The PDP2015 makes it clear that the government sees private investment playing a crucial role in driving this expansion.

Thailand has added nearly 10 GW of additional capacity since 2012, increasing the country’s installed capacity from approximately 32.6 GW to 42.4 GW (as of November 2017). Much of this growth has been driven by the increase in the number of small power producers (SPPs). Installed capacity for SPPs has increased nearly threefold over the same period, from 2.6 GW in 2012 to 7.5 MW as of November 2017, now representing approximately 17.8% of the country’s total generating capacity.

As many SPP projects are reaching maturity and achieving steady, predictable returns for their investors, and as new SPP and very small power producer (VSPP) projects come online, we can expect a degree of market consolidation as producers aim to achieve economies of scale. With this in mind, it is useful to reflect on Thailand’s pre-closing approvals in the energy sector.

In most sectors of the economy, Thailand’s new Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) provides a dual merger control system, involving premerger approvals and postmerger notifications. However, the new act is not applicable to businesses that have been governed by sector-specific antitrust and competition regulations, such as those in the energy sector.

Takeover and merger control in the energy sector is subject to a specific regime, that is, the Regulation of the Energy Regulatory Commission on the Establishment of Criteria to Prevent Mergers, Competition Lessening or Restrictions in Energy Services B.E. 2552 (2009). The regulation was promulgated by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), which has the authority to regulate in order to prevent the reduction of competition in the energy services sector in accordance with section 60 of the Energy Industry Act B.E. 2550 (2007).

Section 4 of the regulation stipulates that an entity which has obtained a license from the ERC is prohibited from merging with another licensee without permission from the ERC. This effectively creates a preclosing merger control regime for licensees. The definition of “merger” under section 3 of the regulation captures situations where two or more licensees amalgamate, or one licensee acquires the assets, shares, or managerial control of another licensee.

In addition to permission to merge, licensees are required to notify the ERC if any of the following events occur:

  • The licensee wishes to enter into a contract causing any person to have absolute or partial direct or indirect control over its management;
  • The licensee acts to take over, or is being taken over, pursuant to the laws relating to securities and exchange; or
  • A person who has the power to control policies, management, supervision, or administration of a licensee takes direct or indirect control of the policies, management, supervision, or administration of another licensee.

Procedurally, permission must be granted by the ERC prior to closing the proposed merger. Once the parties to the proposed merger have submitted the application, the ERC has 90 days to render its decision, which may be extended for a period of up to 15 days if the ERC deems it necessary.

Section 10 of the regulation sets out the criteria for the ERC to consider when assessing whether to grant permission for a proposed merger. That said, the criteria are fairly general in nature and leave considerable room for the ERC to exercise discretion.

In addition to the preclosing merger approval, section 5 of the regulation requires notification to the ERC in the event a licensee is acquired by a third party. Under the Regulation of the Energy Regulatory Commission on Application for License and Permission for Energy Industry Operation B.E. 2551 (2008), one of the criteria of applying for a license to operate in the energy industry is having “sufficient financial and technical potential to construct and operate in the energy industry.”

Accordingly, when a licensee is being acquired or will merge with a nonlicensee, the ERC can scrutinize the transaction to a certain degree. If the company no longer possesses the qualifications required to operate in the energy industry after closing, the ERC may revoke the company’s license.

With Thailand’s ongoing push to increase electricity generating capacity, an opportunity exists for greater participation by private investors. As more projects come online and more producers become active in the sector, we anticipate seeing greater consolidation. The ERC’s merger control regime can be expected to play an increasingly important role in future energy transactions.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 8, 2021
On March 24, 2021, the Prime Minister of Vietnam issued Decision No. 12/2021/QD-TTg issuing regulations on oil spill response. One of the more notable changes is the introduction of templates for oil spill response plans.
February 23, 2021
As many are already aware, following the change of government in Myanmar on February 1, 2021, a draft Cyber Security Law was proposed which attracted widespread criticism. However, less attention has been paid to significant amendments to two existing laws, some of which have a similar effect to parts of the draft Cyber Security Law. In other words, while the draft Cyber Security Law has not progressed further and is under public scrutiny, significant elements of it have found their way into law in Myanmar by other routes. Because these amendments are already law, it is very important that individuals and businesses in Myanmar understand their implications. Amendments to the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens The Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (2017), or the “Privacy Law,” was amended on February 13, 2021, less than two weeks after the military government came into power. These amendments chiefly address the power of the government to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests; to extend detention without judicial oversight; and to carry out broad surveillance and investigation activities that could intrude on individual privacy. The amendments accomplish this by suspending various sections of the Privacy Law for as long as the State Administration Council (the military body now governing Myanmar) is in power. The suspended sections include the following: Section 5: Search, seizure, and arrest without civilian observation The relevant part of Section 5 of the Privacy Law states, “The responsible authorities shall … when acting in accordance with existing law, not enter into a person’s residence or a room used as a residence, or a building, compound or building in a compound, for the purpose of search, seizure, or arrest, unless accompanied by minimum of two witnesses who should comprise Ward or Village Tract Administrators…”. The suspension
February 22, 2021
Following the recent imposition of sanctions on Myanmar individuals and companies by the US, the UK and Canada have now imposed new sanctions. As with the US sanctions, these new measures impact UK and Canadian citizens and companies, and non-UK and non-Canadian companies and citizens with interests in those jurisdictions. The EU has indicated that it is planning to issue similar sanctions in the near future. New UK Sanctions In addition to the 16 individuals already sanctioned by the UK government, on February 18, 2021, the UK government announced that three individuals have been sanctioned for serious human rights violations and are now subject to asset freezes and travel bans. The full list of Myanmar individuals and companies sanctioned by the UK is available on the website of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. Breaches of UK financial sanctions are criminal offences punishable in the UK by up to 7 years imprisonment and heavy fines. New Canadian Sanctions Also on February 18, timed to coincide with the UK sanctions, new Canadian sanctions were imposed on nine individuals. As with the UK, Canada already had a number of individuals in the Myanmar military on its sanctions list, and the new additions bring the total number of individuals sanctioned by Canada to 54. All assets of these individuals in Canada are now frozen, and they are banned from travelling to Canada. Canadian businesses or entities may not do business with any of the 54 individuals. Full details of the impact of the sanctions are available on the Government of Canada’s website, as is a database of the Myanmar individuals and companies subject to them. Breach of Canadian sanctions carries with it up to 5 years’ imprisonment in Canada and/or a large fine. Other Countries The EU is reportedly drawing up sanctions
February 18, 2021
As you will no doubt know, on February 1, 2021, the Myanmar military declared a state of emergency in Myanmar for a period of one year. State Counsellor Daw Aung Sang Su Kyi was detained, as were the president and various significant political and civil leaders. Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw (Myanmar armed forces) has installed himself as chairman of the State Administration Council, the current administration. New sanctions The reaction of the Biden administration has been swift. On February 10, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14014, which provides bases to impose sanctions on individuals and companies deemed by the US to, among other things: operate in the defense sector of Myanmar; be responsible for policies that undermine democratic processes in Myanmar; have taken actions to undermine democratic processes or institutions, or prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of free speech, in Myanmar; or be a spouse or child of the foregoing. On the next day, February 11, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), imposed sanctions under the new executive order on ten individuals—including General Min Aung Hlaing—and three companies, including Cancri Gems & Jewelry Co, Myanmar Imperial Jade Co, and Myanmar Ruby Enterprise.  All such individuals and companies have now been designated on the US list of specially designated nationals (SDNs). Effect of sanctions As a result of such sanctions, the property of these individuals or companies that is located in the US or is under the possession or control of US companies and citizens is frozen, and US companies and citizens are generally prohibited from dealing deal with any such property.  Reportedly, roughly USD 1 billion of funds belonging to the individuals and companies blocked on February 11 are located in the US and thus now frozen. The SDN list As many