With a population exceeding 650 million and an economic engine growing at 5–6 per cent annually, Asean stands at a critical juncture, confronting the multidimensional challenge known as the Energy Trilemma.
Primary energy consumption is projected to nearly double by 2040, exacerbated by digital transformation, with data centre electricity consumption expected to double by 2030. The framework of complex interdependence by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye (1977) is useful for analysing energy relations in Asean, highlighting social connections, non-hierarchical issue structures, and the reduced role of military force.
The Asean Plan of Action for Energy Cooperation (APAEC) 2016–2025 is the region’s strategic response to achieving a stable, prosperous, and competitive energy sector but needs enhancement to address post-2025 challenges such as smart grids, renewable energy, blockchain trading, cybersecurity, and decarbonisation.
The Energy Trilemma is not a singular choice but a complex balancing act that Asean must achieve – how to guarantee a secure supply (Energy Security) and affordability (Affordability) without sacrificing the planet’s future (Environmental Sustainability).
Energy Security refers to the reliability of meeting current and future energy needs, including diverse sources, resilient infrastructure, and stable prices. Energy Affordability is access to energy at reasonable prices without sacrificing other basic needs or economic competitiveness, a critical issue in Asean, where 45 million people still lack electricity access. Environmental Sustainability involves minimising negative environmental impacts, reducing emissions, and supporting ecological health, which is crucial for meeting the Paris Agreement and net-zero targets.
Asean energy cooperation can be analysed through complex interdependence in three ways. First, through multiple channels of connection, beyond formal diplomacy, such as the Asean Ministers on Energy Meeting, the Senior Officials Meeting on Energy, and the Asean Centre for Energy, although their effectiveness varies due to institutional capacity and national priorities.
Second, the absence of a clear issue hierarchy, where economic and social interests often take precedence over military security, allows Asean to navigate sovereignty sensitivities but challenges urgent collective action. Third, the reduced role of military force, where collaborative solutions are preferred, emphasising consensus, voluntary compliance, and mutual benefits, which ensures legitimacy but can slow decision-making.
To move beyond rhetoric, precise measurement is required. The Enhanced Energy Security Index (EESI) measures Asean’s energy vulnerabilities across five weighted dimensions: Supply Security (25 per cent) in domestic resources and import diversification; Demand Security (20 per cent) in efficiency and demand management; Infrastructure Resilience (25 per cent) in protection from physical and cyber threats; Environmental Sustainability (20 per cent) in renewable energy investment and emission reduction; and Governance Effectiveness (10 per cent) in policy frameworks and institutional capacity.
EESI analysis shows significant variations: Brunei leads in Supply Security (8.7/10), Singapore in Infrastructure Resilience (8.9/10), Thailand in Demand Security (7.1/10), and Malaysia in Environmental Sustainability (6.8/10). This highlights the need for regional compensation mechanisms to address individual weaknesses.
The Asean energy landscape is a complex mosaic of contrasts. Primary consumption, projected to hit 1,000 Mtoe by 2040, remains dominated by fossil fuels (coal 32 per cent, petroleum 31 per cent, natural gas 21 per cent), even as renewable energy is promoted as the engine of the future. Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Thailand, and the Philippines each have differing roles – producers, consumers, exporters, and importers – creating opportunities for complementarity. Digital transformation, with projected data centre electricity doubling by 2030, is reshaping the landscape, offering efficiency gains and new cooperation models through digital platforms.
APAEC 2016–2025 aims to enhance energy connectivity and market integration to achieve security, accessibility, affordability, and sustainability for all. Progress has been mixed. The Asean Power Grid (APG) has 18 cross-border connections with 24 GW capacity, but multilateral trade is limited. The Trans-Asean Gas Pipeline (TAGP) faces commercial framework challenges. Renewable energy development is accelerating, but regional cooperation in implementation and technology transfer remains limited. Energy efficiency initiatives have shown results, but a comprehensive regional approach needs improvement.
APAEC implementation has been most successful where existing bilateral cooperation could be leveraged and least successful in areas requiring new multilateral institutions or significant sovereignty sharing. The post-2025 framework must balance legitimacy and ownership with institutional paradoxes while addressing digital transformation, climate imperatives, and geopolitical dynamics.
The Asean Power Grid project serves as a case study, highlighting the “institutional paradox”: significant progress in physical interconnections (over 24 GW from 18+ cross-border projects) contrasts with slow progress in multilateral trade and regulatory harmonisation. While providing a strong foundation for regional energy security and renewable integration, realising its full potential requires institutional innovation to balance Asean consensus-based decision-making with efficient commercial arrangements.
This case affirms that Asean’s priority on national sovereignty and consensus, while promoting legitimacy, hinders efficiency and speed in complex regional projects. A flexible institutional framework is needed to balance sovereignty with deeper integration and a rapid response to evolving energy challenges.
Facing the evolving Energy Trilemma, Asean must embrace transformative action. Five policy recommendations are crucial. First, strengthen the institutional framework through flexible mechanisms that balance sovereignty with deeper regional integration, possibly via regional entities with stronger mandates for cross-border projects and harmonised regulations.
Second, increase investment in renewable energy and smart grids, using incentives, co-financing, and technology transfer to enhance sustainability, security, and affordability. Third, leverage digital transformation to improve efficiency, grid management, and regional energy trade, reducing costs and increasing transparency.
Fourth, develop regional compensation mechanisms to complement each member state’s strengths and address weaknesses in the Trilemma through resource sharing and capacity building. Fifth, revise APAEC post-2025 to incorporate contemporary challenges, balancing sovereignty with integration and rapid adaptation.
The Asean Energy Trilemma is a multi-dimensional challenge requiring a comprehensive and collaborative approach. By applying complex interdependence, using tools like EESI, and learning from APAEC and APG, Asean can develop effective strategies for energy security, affordability, and sustainability.
Success depends on balancing national sovereignty with deeper regional integration, leveraging new technologies, and adapting to geopolitical dynamics. Strengthened cooperation and institutional innovation can shape a resilient and sustainable energy future for all Asean members.
Kolonel Laut (P) Herry Winarno is a member of the Indonesian Armed Forces and currently attending the National Resilience Course at PUSPAHANAS Putrajaya.
The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of Twentytwo13.
