Across Southeast Asia, the transition to clean energy is gaining momentum, but progress remains uneven. While countries have set ambitious net-zero targets, the region continues to rely heavily on fossil fuels, with coal and natural gas still dominating power generation. Thailand faces similar hurdles in its energy transition. While it has made strides in renewable energy deployment, it remains heavily dependent on fossil gas, which is still classified as a transition fuel in national energy plans.
In this month’s SIPET Transition Finance Series, we speak with Sarinee Achavanuntakul, Managing Director of Climate Finance Network Thailand (CFNT), an independent research organization dedicated to advancing sustainable finance in Thailand and the region. Sarinee is a former investment banker, turned public intellectual and thought leader in the area of development broadly, and in recent years, she has focused more of her work on climate finance and sustainable investment. Along with some colleagues, Sarinee set up CFNT last year. She and her CFNT colleagues are working extensively on financial sector policies, corporate sustainability, and the risks of stranded assets related to Thailand’s energy transition.
In this conversation with Peter du Pont, Senior Advisor to SIPET and Co-CEO of Asia Clean Energy Partners, Sarinee offers insights into the current state of transition finance, challenges banks face in aligning with climate goals, Thailand’s policy and regulatory barriers, and the role of disclosure standards and stranded asset risks in shaping the region’s financial future.
* * * * *
SIPET Connect: Transition finance is often discussed alongside green finance and sustainable finance, but its role in Southeast Asia’s energy transition is distinct. How would you define transition finance, and how does it differ from these other forms of climate-related financing?
Sarinee: Transition finance is essential for economies shifting from high-carbon to low-carbon energy. No matter how much we promote green finance—which typically funds renewable projects like wind or solar farms—if most financial flows remain locked into fossil fuel infrastructure, the transition will stall.
There are two key components to transition finance. The first is financing mechanisms that enable the shift away from high-carbon infrastructure, such as funding early coal plant retirements or repurposing fossil fuel assets into cleaner alternatives. A good example is Singapore’s transition credits1, which are designed to support early coal retirements.
The second aspect is unlocking financial flows from fossil fuel investments and redirecting them toward clean energy. Banks and financial institutions play a major role here. Many have set net-zero targets, but for those goals to be meaningful, banks must provide a clear transition plan—showing how they will gradually phase down fossil fuel lending and scale up investments in clean energy.
Unlike green finance, which focuses solely on funding projects already considered “green,” transition finance is about actively enabling the shift—by helping existing high-emission industries adapt, rather than simply supporting those that are already sustainable.
SIPET Connect: What are the biggest challenges for banks in shifting away from fossil fuel lending?
Sarinee: Banks are intermediaries—they don’t produce energy themselves but play a crucial role in allocating capital. This means that when a bank sets a net-zero target, which also includes the emissions from a company’s supply chain—or Scope 3 emissions—the real challenge is: Will their clients transition? If fossil fuel companies receiving financial support from banks don’t decarbonize, banks won’t meet their climate commitments either.
Banks essentially have two choices when aligning with net-zero goals:
Phasing out fossil fuel lending: This approach reduces exposure to high-carbon assets but is difficult because fossil-fuel-based businesses remain profitable and aligned with government policies. Banks that move too early risk being at a competitive disadvantage if their peers continue financing fossil fuel infrastructure and operations.
Working with clients on decarbonization: Instead of cutting off financing, some banks engage with fossil fuel clients to help them develop transition plans. For example, Kasikorn Bank’s climate consultancy unit2 helps clients design decarbonization pathways while maintaining financial relationships.
But even this approach has challenges. Bankers are not energy transition experts—they are experts in financial services. Providing technical decarbonization advice requires new skill sets, which take time to build. Additionally, banks need to integrate transition finance products that effectively incentivize clients to move toward cleaner energy sources.
Ultimately, banks need clear policy signals and incentives to make transition finance scalable. Without strong regulatory direction, many financial institutions will hesitate to take decisive action.
SIPET Connect: What are the financial risks of continuing fossil fuel investments?
Sarinee: One of the biggest risks is stranded assets. Based on CFNT’s research, under different climate scenarios, the potential value of stranded fossil-fuel assets owned by Thai power producers could be valued between $10 billion and $15 billion.3 This is a major financial risk for banks that continue lending to fossil-fuel-based projects without a clear transition plan.
Another looming issue is carbon pricing. While Thailand does not yet have a carbon tax for the energy sector, I believe it is only a matter of time before it is introduced. When that happens, gas-fired power will become even less competitive compared to renewables. If banks fail to anticipate this shift, they could end up with bad loans tied to fossil-fuel-based assets that are no longer profitable.
Ultimately, financial institutions need to understand and integrate these risks into their lending strategies, rather than assuming fossil fuel investments will remain viable in the long run.
SIPET Connect: Thailand’s power development plan still includes new fossil gas plants. How does this affect transition finance efforts?
Sarinee: The slow progress in transition finance is largely due to the absence of a clear policy directive. In the most recent draft of Thailand’s Power Development Plan (PDP), while there are no new coal-fired power plants, there is still no official coal phase-out date or plan, and the PDP continues to include a substantial share of new fossil-based, natural gas plants.
For commercial banks, this creates a dilemma. Many have financed gas companies for decades, and while they might set ambitious net-zero targets, they are operating in a policy landscape that still strongly supports natural gas. The government’s stance effectively signals that natural gas will remain a transition fuel for the foreseeable future.
Thailand’s long-term Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for gas infrastructure guarantee fixed returns for fossil fuel projects, making them low-risk investments for banks. This financial certainty reduces incentives for banks to shift funding toward renewable energy, as renewable projects often lack similar guaranteed revenue streams under existing policies. With such financial certainty, banks have little incentive to prioritize renewable energy—despite the fact that wind and solar are now more cost-competitive.
Without stronger policy signals—such as a carbon tax or regulatory frameworks that make non-transition projects more costly—banks will continue to finance fossil fuels, prioritizing financial security over the energy transition."
SIPET Connect: There has been discussion about introducing a carbon tax and an Emissions Trading System (ETS) in Thailand. How would these impact transition finance?
Sarinee: Thailand is exploring both options, but neither is fully implemented yet. A carbon tax could provide a clear price signal, but if it is set too low, it won’t drive real change. Similarly, an ETS could allow industries to trade emissions allowances, but its effectiveness will depend on how strictly it is enforced.
If designed well, these mechanisms could push banks and corporations to invest in clean energy faster. But without strong regulatory backing, they risk becoming symbolic rather than transformative.
SIPET Connect: How impactful are disclosure standards and green taxonomies in shaping transition finance? Can they meaningfully shift investor and bank behavior, or do they risk becoming just another reporting requirement?
Sarinee: Disclosure standards alone are not enough. The real challenge isn’t just requiring companies to report their emissions—it’s whether investors, regulators, and financial institutions actually use that information to change financial flows. Right now, we’re still early in that journey.
Fair Finance Thailand, a coalition co-founded by CFNT’s parent company Sal Forest, recently conducted a case study comparing climate disclosures from six Thai banks, and one of the biggest challenges they reported was assessing the quality of emissions data from their clients. This difficulty in monitoring, reporting, and verifying emissions isn't just a problem for banks—regulators and government agencies also struggle to standardize and compile credible emissions data across sectors. If banks don’t have reliable data, how can they accurately price risk or make strategic decisions around transition finance?
On the regulatory front, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has announced that it will mandate IFRS S1 & S24 climate disclosures5 for publicly listed companies, beginning with the SET50 firms in the coming years. This follows similar steps taken in Singapore and Malaysia, so Thai companies must now catch up. Meanwhile, the Bank of Thailand’s Green Taxonomy is also being introduced to help categorize financial flows. Both frameworks could help set new standards for how Thai banks approach climate risks and transition finance.
However, the key question remains: Will these regulations actually change lending behavior, or will they simply add another compliance requirement with limited impact? Without strong policy direction and regulatory enforcement, disclosure runs the risk of becoming a box-ticking exercise rather than a real driver of change. If financial institutions are serious about transition finance, they need to go beyond reporting—they must actively integrate climate risks into credit decisions and capital allocation strategies.
SIPET Connect: Can you tell us about Climate Finance Network Thailand (CFNT) 6and its role in advancing climate finance policies?
Sarinee: CFNT is primarily a research organization, but the word “network” in our name reflects our goal of creating a community of practitioners interested in climate finance and sustainable development. Climate action is inherently complex and requires collaboration across multiple disciplines, so we aim to bridge knowledge gaps and foster partnerships that push Thailand’s financial sector toward more proactive climate action.
Currently, CFNT focuses on climate finance research, with a particular emphasis on how financial institutions can be incentivized to shift away from high-carbon investments toward green and climate adaptation projects. We started with research on stranded asset risks, financing of the coal phase-out, and alternative financing mechanisms like crowdfunding for solar projects. Since banks in Thailand tend to be risk-averse in lending for renewables, we are exploring non-bank financing solutions that could expand access to clean energy.
Additionally, we are expanding into tracking climate finance flows—analyzing where climate mitigation and adaptation financing originates and how it is deployed in Thailand. Adaptation finance remains a significant challenge because many of the most impactful projects do not yield immediate financial returns. Unlike mitigation projects—where cost savings can be quantified—adaptation projects benefit communities or reduce long-term risks for companies, making them harder to finance. We are working to address these gaps by developing methodologies for evaluating adaptation investments and advocating for policies that support long-term climate resilience funding.
Through these research efforts and collaborations, CFNT seeks to drive meaningful changes in Thailand’s financial policy, ensuring that climate finance not only supports economic transitions but also delivers tangible benefits to society and the environment.
SIPET Connect: Are you optimistic or pessimistic about scaling up transition finance in Thailand?
Sarinee: [chuckles] I have to be optimistic to work in climate finance in Thailand! But there are real reasons to be hopeful. Unlike Indonesia, Thailand does not rely heavily on coal for power generation—we can literally count the coal-fired power plants still operating, and they account for about 20% of power generation. Many of them are old—15 years or more. And many are state-owned, which means that Thailand could easily announce a date to reach a coal-free power sector and work toward that goal.
Another promising factor is the rise of decentralized renewable energy. More and more Thais, facing severe droughts and floods, are questioning why their local governments lack control over energy decisions. If properly supported, renewables could strengthen energy democracy—empowering communities while lowering costs.
However, for true progress, we urgently need stronger policy direction, a clear coal phase-out plan, and financial instruments that actively incentivize transition, rather than just maintain the status quo.
* * * * *
Editor’s Note: Sarinee Achavanuntakul presents a clear-eyed assessment of Thailand’s transition finance landscape—one that is filled with challenges but also ripe with opportunities. Thailand, along with the rest of the ASEAN region, face policy inertia, financial lock-in, and slow-moving bank strategies, but there is also growing market pressure for change.
As the region grapples with rising energy costs, stranded asset risks, and evolving disclosure rules, the key question remains: Will financial institutions proactively lead the transition, or will they wait until market forces leave them with no choice?