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

April 15, 2020

Thailand Issues Regulations for Procurement of Electricity from Very Small Power Plants

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand has issued a new regulation setting out criteria and conditions for power purchase agreements (PPAs) for very small power producers (VSPPs) under the Community Power Plants for the Local Economy project—part of the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand’s (EGAT) Energy Policy for the Local Economy. The Regulation Re: Procurement of Electricity from Very Small Power Producers was issued on April 2, 2020, by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) and published in the Government Gazette on April 10, 2020.

In order to qualify as a VSPP, a power producer must generate no more than 10 MW per project, and must comply with the requirements and restrictions set by the Executive Committee of Power Purchase from Community Power Plant Projects. Furthermore, prospective VSPPs may only use one of the following:

  • Biomass
  • Biogas from wastewater or waste
  • Biogas from biofuel
  • A hybrid of biomass with biogas (wastewater or waste)
  • A hybrid of biogas (biofuel) with solar power

Under the ERC’s new regulation, a PPA with a VSPP will have a term of 20 years from the Commercial Operation Date (COD) and will specify the following feed-in tariffs (FIT) per unit of electricity, depending on the type of fuel:

  • Solar: THB 2.90 per unit
  • Biomass: THB 4.2636–4.8582 per unit (depending on the installed capacity)
  • Biogas (waste): THB 3.76 per unit
  • Biogas (biofuel): THB 5.3725 per unit
  • Biogas (combination of waste/biofuel): THB 4.7269 per unit

These prices are based on the variable FIT rate for 2019 and will be increased by the ERC based on core inflation. There is also a FIT premium of THB 0.50 per unit for projects located in designated areas.

Applicants must also pay the following guarantees to either the Metropolitan Electricity Authority or the Provincial Electricity Authority:

  1. Application guarantee of THB 500 per kW of electricity offered for sale, payable at the time of application. This will be returned when the applicant withdraws their intent to sell electricity within the application period, if the applicant is not selected for the PPA, or when the applicant has signed the PPA.
  2. Performance guarantee of THB 500 per kW of electricity offered for sale, to be paid prior to signing the PPA. This will be returned on the COD.

Successful applicants must also sign the PPA within 120 days after the selected applicants are announced, or the PPA will be void and the application guarantee forfeited, unless the failure to do so is the result of a force majeure or the fault of a government agency. Furthermore, if the selected producer is unable to produce electricity for sale by the contractually specified COD (SCOD), the producer may be subject to fines of 0.33% of the guarantee payments per day, starting from 60 days after the SCOD. If the VSPP is still unable to supply electricity 360 days after the SCOD, the PPA will be terminated and the performance guarantee may be forfeited.

The application timeline and details of required supporting documents will be specified later by the ERC, which will also provide the application form and further criteria.

Related Professionals

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More
August 18, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is seeking public comment on proposed amendments that would significantly expand know-your-customer (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for cash-related transactions at financial institutions (FIs) and specialized financial institutions (SFIs). Released on August 5, 2026, the proposed regulation would supersede BOT Notification No. 16/2569, which focused primarily on cash withdrawal transactions. The public comment period is open through September 3, 2026. The amendments reflect concerns that FIs and SFIs may be used to facilitate the movement, concealment, and conversion of criminal proceeds, potentially damaging institutional operations and public confidence in the financial system. Expanded Scope of Covered Transactions The most significant change is the broadening of the definition of “cash-related transactions.” Previously, the regulation covered only cash withdrawals and uncrossed check withdrawals. The amended regulation extends coverage to include: Cash deposits, check deposits, or receipt of funds from the public not in the form of deposit accounts; Thai baht (THB) banknote exchange (different denominations); Receipt of cash for issuing checks and drafts; and Purchase, sale, or exchange of foreign banknotes. Mandatory Identity Verification and Risk Management For all cash-related transactions, FIs and SFIs must require customers, or authorized or delegated persons, to present identification or verify their identity before every transaction, including one-time (walk-in) transactions. Specific identification requirements vary by transaction type, customer nationality, and channel (branch vs. electronic). FIs and SFIs must also establish comprehensive risk management processes and procedures for cash-related transactions. These requirements include identifying customers or authorized representatives in accordance with transaction-specific verification standards, analyzing customer behavior, implementing risk-management measures proportionate to the customer’s risk profile, and recording abnormal behavior in relevant systems. The BOT also encourages institutions to proactively guide customers toward transaction channels that offer greater traceability than cash. For corporate customers in high-risk business sectors—including foreign
Read More
August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More
August 14, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Insurance Commission (OIC) has issued guidelines clarifying the boundaries between permissible and prohibited activities for unlicensed individuals—including influencers, bloggers, and content creators—when communicating about insurance products on social media. The Good Practice Guidelines for Persons Not Licensed as Insurance Agents or Brokers Regarding the Dissemination of Insurance Content Through Digital Media B.E. 2569 (2026) took effect on July 24, 2026. Activities Requiring a License The guidelines reserve the following activities for licensed agents and brokers: Soliciting or facilitating insurance contracts. Providing personalized advice on product suitability. Recommending policy cancellation to purchase promoted products. Creating links that facilitate contract formation. Receiving performance-based compensation tied to policies or premiums generated. Importantly, boilerplate disclaimers such as “this is not a recommendation to buy insurance” will not shield individuals from liability if the OIC views the content as personalized advice or solicitation. Permitted Activities Unlicensed persons may present general educational content about insurance—such as explaining terminology, sharing industry statistics, reporting news, or sharing personal experiences—provided the content does not target specific individuals to purchase from specific companies. The guidelines also set out best practices for communication, including presenting information in a fair and balanced manner that covers both benefits and limitations, encouraging consumers to read policy terms and consult licensed professionals, verifying information from credible sources before dissemination, and exercising special care when the audience may include vulnerable groups such as persons aged 60 and older. Prohibited Practices Prohibited practices include fear-based marketing, creating artificial urgency, omitting material limitations, making exaggerated claims, falsely claiming professional credentials, using fake engagement mechanisms, and sharing false or misleading content. The guidelines also reinforce the prohibitions under section 83 of the Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 and section 78 of the Non-Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 against soliciting insurance contracts with foreign operators
Read More