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​ 

June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 19, 2026
For the first time, Thailand’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published a consolidated list identifying all substances that have successfully passed its novel food safety evaluation process. The list is a step forward in regulatory transparency, but it also highlights a feature of the Thai regime that food companies often overlook: each approval is tied exclusively to the company that applied for it. A substance’s appearance on the list does not give other companies the green light to use it. This article examines the structure of Thailand’s novel food approval framework, the implications of applicant exclusivity, and the strategic choices it requires of food companies looking to bring novel ingredients to the Thai market. Thai FDA Food Safety Evaluation Framework Notification No. 376 of the Ministry of Public Health requires novel food substances to undergo a food safety assessment, with an exemption only for novel foods manufactured exclusively for export. The framework also encompasses “foods that do not qualify as novel foods” but which present characteristics warranting a safety evaluation, such as differing quality standards, increased serving sizes, or applications in specific food categories, where such changes affect consumption levels, nutritional value, or consumer safety. The recently published list of foods that passed the safety evaluation by the Thai FDA is structured by substance category and identifies the approved company (domestic manufacturer or importer), country of origin, substance name and trade name, approved purpose of use, and date of the Thai FDA’s approval notification certificate. A notable feature of Thailand’s novel food regime is that the approval result is tied exclusively to the company that submitted the application. Publication of the consolidated list does not constitute a general authorization to use the approved substances. The Thai FDA’s approval certificate specifies the approved conditions of use and the requirements
Read More
June 18, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has released a detailed draft notification expanding its oversight to cover the funding sources behind major shareholdings in licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Published on June 8, 2026, as Public Hearing Document No. 30/2569, the draft builds on funding-source principles introduced in an April hearing and on recently amended Ministry of Finance notifications issued in February 2026 that broadened the definition of major shareholder of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. A public comment period on the draft closes on June 23, 2026. An earlier version of the SEC’s proposal brought the issue of funding behind significant shareholdings within the SEC’s regulatory perimeter, signaling intent to look beyond shareholding to the persons and capital ultimately financing major shareholdings in licensed securities and digital asset business operators. The concern is that control may be exercised through financing arrangements rather than through equity ownership alone. The draft notification advances that initiative into a more detailed regulatory framework, as summarized below. Expanded Definition Captures Funding Sources Throughout Ownership Chains The draft regulation introduces a “material funding source” concept. A material funding source is the principal capital that enables a major shareholder to acquire its shareholding, without which the shareholding could not be obtained. Under the proposed rules, any person who provides such funding, whether directly to the major shareholder or indirectly through any tier of the ownership chain above the operator, is deemed a controller subject to SEC approval. The draft also captures any person acting as a conduit or intermediary in facilitating financial assistance to a major shareholder, deeming each of these persons to be a material funding source and aggregating it into the same control group as the ultimate funding source. The definition covers not only cash loans and equity investments,
Read More
June 17, 2026
Thailand’s new labeling requirements for medical devices, which include for the first time a unique device identification (UDI) requirement for software as a medical device (SaMD), take effect on June 20, 2026. The Notification of the Ministry of Public Health regarding Criteria, Methods, and Conditions on Labeling and Instructions for Use for Medical Devices 2025, which replaces a similar notification from 2020, was published in the Government Gazette on December 22, 2025. To ensure clarity, modernity, and patient safety, the regulation requires domestic manufacturers and importers to provide labels and instructions for use (IFU) that are clearly legible, complete, and free of false or misleading claims. It also permits IFU to be provided in electronic format, such as via QR codes, websites, or other digital channels—directly relevant to SaMD, where physical labels are impractical and electronic presentation is the natural medium. The notification distinguishes two categories for labeling language. Home-use medical devices (for lay users outside healthcare facilities) must have labels and IFU in Thai. Professional-use medical devices may display labels and documentation in either Thai or English. This distinction is significant for SaMD developers: software intended for clinical professionals may use English-language interfaces and IFU, while consumer-facing health applications must provide Thai-language content. Labeling and UDI Requirements Labels and IFU must include, at a minimum: Product name and intended purpose Quantity or volume Name and address of domestic manufacturer or importer Thai FDA approval number Lot, version, or serial number Manufacturing date and expiry date For SaMD, the version number requirement is particularly relevant. The regulation also mandates display of a UDI code for SaMD in risk category 2 (moderate-risk), category 3 (moderate- to high-risk), and category 4 (high-risk), according to Thailand’s medical device risk classification system (which complies with the ASEAN Medical Device Directive and the EU
Read More