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 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
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