As Thailand works toward its ambitious goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 and net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2065, the country faces growing pressure to diversify its energy mix. While renewables like solar, wind, and hydropower remain central to this transition, long-term stability and reliability require alternative solutions. Against this backdrop, nuclear power has resurfaced as a potential component of Thailand’s energy strategy.
Despite its promise as a low-carbon power source, nuclear energy presents complex legal, regulatory, and social challenges. Thailand must establish a governance framework that ensures safety, aligns with international standards, and addresses public skepticism. Moreover, regulatory policies must adhere to Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles, balancing economic growth with sustainability and public welfare.
This article explores Thailand’s nuclear energy regulatory landscape, examining its legal framework, policy developments, and foreign investment considerations. It also assesses key challenges—including regulatory inefficiencies, public perception, and nuclear waste management—while drawing insights from global best practices to determine how Thailand can navigate its nuclear future.
Thailand’s Regulatory Landscape for Nuclear Power
The Nuclear Energy for Peace Act, B.E. 2559 (2016) serves as Thailand’s primary legal framework for nuclear energy, replacing earlier legislation to align with international standards. It governs licensing, radiation safety, and compliance, ensuring nuclear activities adhere to global best practices.
The Act mandates licensing for all nuclear-related activities, including possession, production, import, export, and disposal of radioactive materials. It also enforces strict safety measures, requiring emergency response plans, continuous monitoring, and radiation protection protocols. Violations can result in fines, license suspension, or revocation.
Regulatory oversight is managed by the Office of Atoms for Peace (OAP), which handles licensing, inspections, and public communication on nuclear safety. However, responsibilities are also shared with the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) and the Nuclear Energy Program Implementation Committee (NEPIC), leading to inefficiencies and bureaucratic delays. Calls for consolidating these agencies or clarifying their mandates have gained traction, as fragmented oversight could hinder Thailand’s nuclear ambitions.
While Thailand currently lacks a commercial nuclear power program, its legal framework supports research and development while maintaining alignment with international standards. However, compared to other jurisdictions, Thailand’s regulations remain relatively restrictive. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) permits private nuclear operators under federal oversight, while France’s Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN) ensures independent supervision and public transparency.
Following the Fukushima disaster, Japan introduced stricter regulations, seismic risk assessments, and emergency preparedness measures through its Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA). Thailand has taken a similarly cautious approach, prioritizing environmental safeguards and regulatory oversight rather than full-scale nuclear adoption. Political hesitation, cost concerns, and public skepticism remain the primary barriers to progress.
Policy Developments: The Power Development Plan
Thailand’s Power Development Plan (PDP) serves as its strategic roadmap for electricity generation, distribution, and consumption, aligning with economic growth and sustainability goals. Over the years, multiple revisions have adjusted the country’s energy strategy in response to technological advancements, energy security concerns, and carbon reduction targets.
The 2007 PDP initially included plans for two 1,000 MW nuclear power plants. However, following the 2011 Fukushima disaster, the Thai government indefinitely postponed its nuclear ambitions. Later revisions, including PDP 2018, excluded nuclear power entirely.
In PDP 2015-2036, nuclear power was projected to contribute 0-5% of the energy mix by 2036, but without concrete development plans.
The pending PDP 2024 marks a shift by formally integrating nuclear energy into Thailand’s long-term energy strategy. The draft plan projects nuclear power contributing 1% of total electricity generation by 2037, with the introduction of two Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), each with a 300 MW capacity. The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) is expected to oversee their development and operation, marking Thailand’s first concrete step toward nuclear adoption in decades.This inclusion signals a strategic pivot that could pave the way for greater nuclear integration in the future. While its initial contribution remains modest, nuclear power’s role aligns with Thailand’s broader carbon neutrality commitments.
Foreign Participation, Investment Considerations, and Cross-Border Opportunities
The Nuclear Energy for Peace Act does not explicitly restrict foreign ownership of nuclear power facilities, suggesting foreign entities may invest in and operate nuclear plants. However, other Thai laws impose significant limitations.
The Foreign Business Act (FBA) classifies power generation as a “service” under List Three, Section 21, restricting majority foreign ownership unless special approval is granted. Additionally, under the Land Code, companies with over 49% foreign ownership are considered “foreign” and generally prohibited from owning land, which could hinder foreign investment in nuclear plant development.
The Energy Industry Act (2007), on the other hand, allows foreign operation of nuclear power plants, but proposed legislation may cap foreign ownership at 49% and require at least half of the board to be Thai nationals. Furthermore, the Nuclear Energy for Peace Act mandates that the director of a nuclear facility must be a Thai national domiciled in Thailand. These restrictions could limit direct foreign ownership but leave room for participation through joint ventures, public-private partnerships (PPPs), consultancies, technology transfers, and infrastructure infrastructure. This is highlighted by Thailand’s discussions with Russia’s Rosatom and South Korea’s KEPCO, though no formal agreements have been reached.
Given Thailand’s role in the ASEAN Power Grid, nuclear-generated electricity could be integrated into regional energy trade, fostering cooperation with Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia. This presents investment opportunities in cross-border nuclear projects that support Thailand’s energy strategy while strengthening ASEAN’s energy market.
Persistent Challenges Remain for Nuclear Power
The documentary Nuclear Now highlights the gap between nuclear energy’s climate potential and public skepticism, a tension also present in Thailand’s regulatory landscape. While the Nuclear Energy for Peace Act (NEA) includes Section 29, which mandates public outreach, no comprehensive educational campaigns have been implemented. Expanding this provision could improve transparency, similar to France’s Public Information Code, which requires clear communication about nuclear projects.
Regulatory inefficiencies pose another challenge. Overlapping mandates of the OAP, ERC, and NEPIC risk bureaucratic delays, slowing nuclear energy development. While industry stakeholders have called for a centralized regulatory body, there is currently no government-backed initiative to consolidate these agencies.
Public skepticism remains a major obstacle, fueled by historical nuclear disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima and a lack of awareness about radiation, waste management, and reactor safety. Addressing these concerns requires public education, stakeholder consultations, and transparent decision-making. Local resistance to plant sites stems from fears of environmental damage, community displacement, and threats to agriculture and fisheries. Effective community engagement, fair compensation, and rigorous environmental assessments are essential for building trust.
Thailand’s Hazardous Substances Act (1992) currently governs nuclear waste management but lacks specificity for long-term radioactive waste disposal. A dedicated nuclear waste law, akin to the U.S. Nuclear Waste Policy Act, is essential. This legislation should define storage solutions, disposal protocols, and compliance with international safety standards to ensure responsible waste handling.
Looking Ahead
Thailand’s shift towards nuclear power requires careful planning, regulatory development, and international collaboration. The potential adoption of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) represents a major step toward a low-carbon energy future. However, public acceptance, political stability, and regulatory cohesion remain key challenges.
A strong regulatory framework and partnerships with experienced nuclear nations will be critical to advancing Thailand’s nuclear ambitions. Addressing safety, environmental, and public health concerns will be essential for a successful transition.
For more information on our ESG capabilities, contact us at [email protected] or through our website’s contact form.
