Interview: The ASEAN Frontier and UN ESCAP on the ASEAN Power Grid
An exclusive interview between TAF's Editor-in-Chief Nabil Haskanbancha and UN ESCAP
Our Editor-in-Chief, Nabil Haskanbancha, interviewed UN experts at ESCAP (Bangkok, Thailand) to learn more about the ASEAN Power Grid (APG). As energy demand continues to rise in Southeast Asia, the APG can help address energy security and the unequal distribution of renewable energy.
While the APG offers clear techno-economic advantages, such as reduced costs and lower carbon emissions, it also delivers important socio-economic benefits. In the long term, the APG plays a key role in driving sustainable development, promoting job creation, expanding energy access for underserved communities, and helping to achieve SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy.
Matthew Wittenstein, Chief of the Energy Connectivity Section at ESCAP, discussed recent projects such as the Green Power Corridor Playbook, which provides a practical, actionable guide for implementing energy connectivity initiatives that support sustainable, inclusive growth, social equity, and climate resilience. Future conversations about energy connectivity will need to consider holistic factors that address the economic, environmental, and social impacts of energy projects.
NH: “What are some effective ways to encourage policymakers, NGOs, and other stakeholders to look beyond the usual techno-economic advantages of APG?”
MW: “To encourage stakeholders to look beyond the techno-economic advantages of the APG, it's essential to highlight the long-term sustainability and just transition benefits that a more integrated grid can offer. Policymakers and NGOs can be motivated by framing the conversation around the broader, positive socio-economic impacts, such as job creation, energy access for underserved communities, and the role of renewable energy in achieving SDG 7 targets and other policy goals. Demonstrating how the APG can contribute to promote regional stability, and support geopolitical cooperation is also an added incentive. Strategic advocacy, stakeholder workshops, and impact assessments can serve as tools to engage stakeholders in understanding the multidimensional benefits of the APG. By framing the APG as a regional development tool, rather than just a technical infrastructure project, we can expand its appeal to a broader group of stakeholders. To this end, ESCAP has developed the Green Power Corridor Framework, composed of building blocks, principles and metrics for guiding and assessing the alignment of energy connectivity projects with the Sustainable Development Goals, to enable and ensure a more holistic approach to energy connectivity. Currently, ESCAP is working on a ‘Green Power Corridor Playbook’ that will provide a practical, actionable guide for implementing energy connectivity initiatives that support sustainable, inclusive growth, social equity, and climate resilience. It will offer tools for assessing the economic, environmental and social impacts of energy projects and provide recommendations for best practices, policy frameworks and collaborative approaches that promote long-term success and scalability.”NH: “What are some key challenges in adopting a region-wide framework for assessing APG?”
MW: “Aligning Priorities: While all ASEAN members are committed to improving regional energy integration, their economic and energy needs vary significantly. Some countries may prioritize energy security, while others focus on affordability or sustainability. Aligning these diverse priorities requires balancing the needs of countries. Equitable Distribution of Costs and Benefits: Ensuring that the benefits of the APG reach all member states, especially lower-capacity and smaller economies, is a challenge. Countries may face difficulties in accessing investment and technology, which can result in unequal benefits from shared regional infrastructure. To address this, it’s crucial to establish mechanisms that ensure inclusive participation and cost and benefit-sharing among all ASEAN nations, potentially through regional cooperation funds.”NH: “To what extent do existing funding mechanisms and investment criteria used by development banks or private financiers support–or constrain–the adoption of broader impact assessments like those in the APG Framework?”
MW: “Existing funding mechanisms and investment criteria used by development banks or private financiers are often primarily focused on the economic viability or ‘bankability’ of projects, such as return on investment (ROI), cost-effectiveness, and market potential. As important as these criteria are, focusing primarily on them may constrain the adoption of broader impact assessments, as social and environmental factors are sometimes seen as secondary or difficult to quantify. However, there is increasing recognition among development banks, such as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank (ADB), and private investors that sustainable projects cannot ignore social and environmental benefits and risks. Incorporating frameworks like Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria, which consider the long-term impacts of projects, is gaining traction. At the same time, efforts to ensure sustainability, such as climate financing, may impose certain restrictions on developing the APG due to taxonomy issues related to financing eligibility. As financial institutions and regulatory bodies adopt stricter standards for what constitutes "green" or "sustainable" investments, there could be challenges in aligning APG projects with these criteria, especially when they don’t fully meet the criteria set by taxonomies like the EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities. To address these financing challenges, the APG framework must demonstrate how broader assessments—such as social inclusion, gender equity, and environmental sustainability—can align with the financial goals of stakeholders. This includes showcasing the long-term value these factors bring, such as climate resilience, and illustrating that an inclusive energy system has the potential to generate a larger social and economic return over time.”NH: “How can ASEAN ensure that the collection and standardization of qualitative data–essential for holistic assessments–does not disproportionately burden lower-capacity member states or lead to data gaps that undermine comparability?”
MW: “Capacity Building: Provide targeted training and technical assistance to lower-capacity member States to help them collect and analyze data without overwhelming their existing resources. This could involve developing easy-to-use tools and guidelines for data collection and analysis, ensuring that these countries can participate fully without significant additional burdens. Simplified Reporting Frameworks: Develop a streamlined and standardized reporting system that balances data quality with ease of collection. Focus on key indicators that are essential for assessing energy access, sustainability, and social impact. This will help minimize data gaps and ensure comparability across countries, even if some member States have fewer resources. Regional Data Sharing Platforms: Establish a centralized data repository where countries can share qualitative and quantitative data in a consistent and organized way. This will not only improve comparability but also encourage peer learning among countries. For example, the ASEAN Centre for Energy can play a leading role in facilitating data exchange and ensuring quality control while also providing technical support to countries with weaker data infrastructure.”
