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 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
Read More