I wonder how many of our EnergyLab readers have pondered about what's happening in the ASEAN region. What's the status of the energy transition? How has the region responded to the energy crisis? Has there been any progress on the ASEAN Power Grid?
Here are some of my takes from ASEAN for the Peoples Week 2026. Taking place in Cebu, Philippines, it is an annual civil society–driven platform hosted by the Foreign Policy Community of Indonesia (FPCI), designed to complement ASEAN's regional processes by expanding inclusive public engagement and multi-stakeholder dialogue.
The room was candid and honest about what is at stake
The event opened with a frank acknowledgment that we are living through a poly-crisis. The Strait of Hormuz tension is disrupting the energy and fertilizer supply chains that Southeast Asia depends on. The global trade war has landed some ASEAN economies with the highest tariffs we’ve seen in decades. And climate change is quietly compounding all of it. There was a shared sense in the room that, much like the early 1990s, nobody knows the shape of the next world order. That was the backdrop for the conversation that followed.
There was an Antonio Gramsci quote that was repeatedly shared across the week : “The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters”. This quote spoke to the deep uncertainty of the present moment, but also the possibilities for change.
On energy, we are still talking more than doing
The most honest moment of the energy sessions came from a simple observation: ASEAN's energy mix is still nearly 80% fossil-based, even as renewable energy has become the cheapest source of new power in most of the region. The ASEAN Power Grid has been on the agenda for decades, but many of the same roadblocks remain in place. On paper, at least, the targets are clear: the ASEAN Plan of Action for Energy Cooperation (APAEC) now targets 30% renewable energy in total primary energy supply by 2030. The technical feasibility has been demonstrated. So, what's the holdup?
It seemed that the answer was not only about the shift of technology but also politics, overlapping mandates, uneven institutional capacity, and the persistent challenge of turning regional commitments into national action.
ASEAN+3 (China, Japan, and South Korea): partners with competing visions
One of the most interesting sessions was the ASEAN+3 roundtable on green trade and energy, where representatives from China, Japan, and South Korea each presented their perspectives. What struck me was how different the visions are, and how ASEAN needs to be deliberate about navigating between them.
China is already the dominant supplier of solar panels, batteries, and EVs across Southeast Asia. For Cambodia, this relationship is pragmatic and productive, but also concentrated. Japan is advancing the Asia Zero Emission Community (AZEC), which brings financing and technology cooperation. South Korea is pushing forward through battery manufacturing and grid partnerships.
The key question for smaller economies like Cambodia is how do we diversify partnerships without abandoning what is already working? And how do we ensure that regional cooperation includes deliberate support for countries graduating from Least Developed Country status at exactly the moment they need to invest most heavily in industrial upgrading?
What I shared from the ground
I had the opportunity to speak at the public Town Hall session on energy and climate security. I shared Cambodia's story, from growing up in a hometown without reliable electricity to watching Cambodia reach 99% electricity coverage over two decades, to now facing the harder question of what comes next.
Cambodia has set ambitious targets: 700,000 electric vehicles, a 19% energy reduction, and 70% renewable energy, all by 2030. But targets alone do not build resilience. The lesson from the energy crisis is the difference between energy supply and energy resilience. Supply can be disrupted. Prices can spike overnight. Chokepoints can close. Resilience is what remains when those things happen.
I raised four points that apply well beyond Cambodia:
Clean energy is one of the fastest and most powerful levers to improve industrial competitiveness, from garments to agriculture to manufacturing. Cambodia is one of the best places in the region to harness this opportunity.
Energy access is not binary. Having a connection is different from having reliable power. Having reliable power is different from having affordable power. And having affordable power is different from having power that does not expose your community to the volatility of global fossil fuel markets. Rooftop solar, battery storage, efficient appliances, smart meters, EVs, and distributed energy systems are some of the most effective solutions to meet energy access needs.
The skills gap is real now, and it is not a future problem. We need more talent to deliver the energy transition at pace and at scale.
The energy transition cannot be delivered by governments alone. Key stakeholders need to be genuine partners in design, not consultees after decisions are already made.
Three things that matter for the ASEAN Power Grid.
Across the energy sessions, three points on APG kept coming up as worth prioritising:
First, increasing the flow of cross-border renewable energy will reduce dependency on fossil fuels and the geopolitical chokepoints that come with them. Second, there are real economic benefits for host countries, and we have past examples to learn from. Third, if designed well, the APG can actively support regional supply chain development and new industries - it can be so much more than just moving electrons.
The hard part is the energy trilemma: balancing cost, environmental goals, and reliability across ten countries with very different energy profiles and institutional capacities.
What I left thinking about.
ASEAN has already built genuine frameworks, charters, and agreements. The harder part, and the part that kept coming up across every session, is the implementation. Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that actually hold member states accountable largely do not exist. The question isn't whether ASEAN has a vision. It's whether the leadership and institutional muscle exist to move from vision to practice.
That's the work ahead and why events like this are more than just talk. They're where the region figures out whether it actually means what it says.