PUTRAJAYA, Feb 11 (Bernama) -- The power tariff for consumers in Peninsular Malaysia will be reduced by 2.25 sen/KWH from March 1 to June 30 this year following a review of fuel and other generation costs.

Energy, Green Technology and Water Minister Datuk Seri Dr Maximus Ongkili said this was decided during the Cabinet meeting today after it was informed that the cost of Imbalance Cost Pass-Through (ICPT) savings could be passed on to consumers in the form of cheaper tariff amounting to RM726.99 million after taking into account the drop in global fuel prices and generation costs.

He said the savings of ICPT costs would reduce the electricity bill for domestic users using in excess of 300 kWh a month and all consumers in other categories such as commercial and industry.

"Nevertheless, domestic consumers using below 300kWh of electricity a month are not affected by the decision," he told a media conference related to ICPT and electricity tariffs here today.

The ICPT mechanism allows Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) to reflect changes (either an increase or reduction) of the uncontrollable fuel costs in the electricity tariff every six months. In the event of a reduction in fuel costs, TNB will also pass-through the reduction to customers.

Following the move, he said domestic users could see savings from RM13.50 to RM45 in their monthly bills.

"The savings will depend on the amount of (electricity) usage," he said.

Ongkili said the basis of the ICPT savings totalling RM726.99 million among others was due to greater usage of coal as fuel as compared other fuels like Medium Fuel Oil (MFO) and distillates, besides coal-fired plants being more efficient in power generation.

He said the ICPT cost saving was translated into a tariff reduction of 2.25 sen/kWH which amounted to 5.8 per cent of TNB's average tariff of 38.53 sen/kWH.

On domestic users using less than 300kWH monthly, he said they were not affected by the reduction because the Lifeline Band 0-200kWH had remained at 21.8 sen/kWH since 1997 while for the 201-300kWH band, the rate had been maintained at 33.4 sen/kWH since 2009.

"There about one million domestic users in the lifeline band with monthly bills RM20.00 and below which are borne by the government. As such, they are not involved in the tariff reduction," he said.

In the meantime, Ongkili said the Cabinet also agreed that the average tariff rate of 34.52 sen/kWH be reduced by 1.20 sen/kWH for Sabah and the Federal Territory of Labuan for the same time period, which is a drop of 3.5 per cent from the current average tariff rate.

The decision involved all domestic users using more than 300kWH of electricity a month and all consumers in other categories such as commercial and industry, he said.

The government approved a power tariff hike in Sabah and the Federal Territory of Labuan amounting to five sen/kWH from the average rate of 29.52 sen/kWH to 34.52 sen/kWH with fuel and tariff subsidies effective Jan 1, 2014.

He said the giving of subsidy was because the revenue collected by Sabah Electricity Sdn Bhd (SESB) could not meet its operational costs.

Ongkili said the reduction in tariff meant that the Federal Government was forced to maintain the estimated annual fuel subsidy of RM260 million.

The government has also approved an allocation of RM2.3 billion in the form of grants to develop 81 electrical infrastructural projects in Sabah for the period 2015-2020 including projects to reduce SAIDI (frequency of electricity supply disruption).

Ongkili clarified that the ICPT mechanism was not implemented in Sabah and the Federal Territory of Labuan.

For Sarawak, he explained that the electricity supply industry, including issues relating to electrical tariff, was not supervised by the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water, according to Section 1(2) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (Act 447).

Asked why the reduction was only up to June 1, Ongkili said the market was still volatile.

"The government has made a commitment of no upward review this year. We are commited to that policy. No increase this year.

"If we need further downward reviews... we will cross the bridge when the time comes," he added.

PM: Electricity tariff hikes to avoid subsidies for TNB

Power tariff – the last straw that broke the camel’s back?

Liew Chin Tong
Malaysiakini


MP SPEAKS

The spate of new taxes and price hikes, the latest being the electricity tariff hike, have caused me to doubt whether the government under Najib Abdul Razak has any idea about the macroeconomic risks that Malaysia faces.

Against the backdrop of an uncertain global economy and the likeliness of the quantitative easing tapering, domestic demand is crucial in sustaining the Malaysian economy. Yet the spate of new taxes and price hikes will produce an opposite result: the further decline of domestic demand.

Will the electricity tariff increase become the last straw on the camel’s back that will see the Malaysian economy collapsing due to the confluence of several domestic and global factors?

The electricity tariff will be increased by an average of about 14.89 percent for Peninsular Malaysia, and by about 17 percent for Sabah and Labuan from next year.

The average electricity tariff in Peninsular Malaysia will be up 4.99 sen per kWh or 14.89 percent from the current average rate of 33.54 sen/kWh to 38.53 sen/kWh.

For Sabah and Labuan, the average tariff will be up 5 sen per kWh or 16.9 percent from current average rate of 29.52 sen per kWh to 34.52 sen per kWh.

GST will cause inflation

Currently, Malaysia is already burdened with risks of a potential crisis due to the following factors:

First, the goods and services tax (GST), which will be introduced in April 2015, will eat away disposable income and hence depress domestic demand, as well as cause inflation, at least in the first year.

Second, quantitative easing is likely to end by then. The interest rate is likely to be higher in 2015 and a higher interest rate will depress domestic demand further. As the US dollar appreciates, imports will become more expensive.

On the other hand, exports may not be too good, even with a depreciated ringgit largely because job growth in the US and Europe would still be slow, thus demand of our exported goods would not be high.

In addition, some US manufacturers are moving back to the United States, which means room for Malaysia’s export-led growth is limited.

Third, I am of the view that palm oil price is likely to further soften in 2015, mainly due to oversupply and a potential soya super harvest next year, despite the Haiyan catastrophe causing short-term shortages of coconut oil.

The potential softening of palm oil prices will have major political consequences in Malaysia as small owners in small towns and rural areas depend heavily on commodities.

Will there be a property bubble?

Fourth, will there be a property bubble? What would be the combined effect of electricity tariff hike, GST implementation, higher interest rate (mostly as a result of quantitative easing tapering) and lower commodity prices?

The moment somebody begins to default, there is risk of a meltdown, especially in the context of very high domestic debt-to-GDP ratio.

Beyond that, the rating agencies’ greater scrutiny of Malaysia’s poorly managed public finances will likely result in more expensive borrowing costs to the government, and consequently push up further the interest rate for everyone else.

Fuel prices are never easy to gauge, but the petrol price may fall as the supply of shale gas comes through.

The fall of petrol price will be a double-edged sword. It would mean less subsidy payment, thus helping to reduce the deficit,

However, this also means eroding Petronas’s contribution to the public coffers, thus potentially resulting in widening of deficit, which in turn further erodes the government’s creditworthiness.

The government needs to have the big picture in mind and coordinate its macroeconomic policies to avoid the potential meltdown. Any hard landing is going to harm millions of ordinary families, hence efforts should be made now to prevent such an occurrence.

LIEW CHIN TONG is the MP for Kluang and DAP national political education director.

Consumers cry foul over tampered meters

Consumers have been receiving shocking electrity bills ever since TNB installed new meters in their premises.

PETALING JAYA: Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) has been conducting a covert operation to boost its profits by first installing new meters in the houses, and then accusing owners of tampering with the gadgets and stealing power, claims a complaints bureau.

Selangor MCA Public Complaints Bureau chief Theng Book alleged that based on complaints received, it seemed that TNB had been conducting a nationwide operation in recent months to “blackmail” their customers by “wrongfully” accusing them of tampering with their meters.

Theng said that more than 40 people in the Klang Valley have complained to him about being billed exorbitant amounts ranging from a few hundreds to RM40,000.

“I believe this is just a way for TNB to increase its profits. This is a wrong operation. These people, who I believe to be innocent, are scapegoats,” he said.

Theng said the bureau had also received similar complaints from Penang, Kuantan, and Negri Sembilan.
He said complaints started pouring in since the beginning of this year.

Many of these complaints, he said, were from owners and residents of low and medium-cost houses and apartments, who have been slapped with bills totalling in the thousands.

According to Theng, the TNB’s operation was flawed because the technicians could not produce proper evidence in all cases.

He said that TNB’s “modus operandi” was to go to houses or commercial shoplots and change the owners’ meters without informing the residents.

After a few months, TNB would send residents a letter saying it has concrete evidence that they have been found to have tampered with their old meters.

The owners would then be asked to pay the owed amount or have their electricity cut within 14 days.
“This amounts to blackmail. TNB should stop such operations and observe the rule of natural justice, which is to give people the chance to defend themselves.

“Proper notices should be sent and proper evidence should be shown,” he said.

Faulty meters

Showing FMT a sample of a letter from one of his complainants, Theng noted that TNB had merely claimed the owner had failed to pay a certain amount but did not state how much electricity had actually been “stolen”.

“The amount seems arbitrary, seemingly plucked out of thin air,” he said, adding that the fault could have been in the meters.

“We have many cases where complainants said that after the meter was changed, their bill was even less than before, so how could they have tampered with both the old and new meters?”

Theng said many of his complainants said they were merely shown some photographs and wires when they insisted on proof, which to him was inadequate.

He said TNB’s replies to his letters on behalf of the complainants also did not explain their case well.
“The burden should be on TNB to prove its allegations against the owners; most of these people are now confused and don’t know what to do.

“Many do not much income but are forced to pay,” he said.
Theng said there were many cases where the complainants were given discounts and told that they could pay by instalments.

Most of those who have complained to Theng have refused to pay, but some, desperate to appease the authorities, had started paying by instalments.

Theng, an MCA legal expert, said that his bureau is offering free legal service to anyone with a similar case who is being sued by TNB.

“I cannot say if all are genuine but if there is a case, then we would help defend as a test case,” he said.


Rigged by TNB insiders

Theng said that one woman from whom TNB had claimed some RM12,000 had recently won her case against the utility company.

“We’ve been informed that there are some people who are well versed in TNB operations and are offering their services to tamper with meters.

“TNB should go after them. We suspect that they may even be TNB insiders. It’s TNB’s problem, don’t pass the problem back to the consumer,” said Theng.

FMT was furnished with a list of some 40 complainants.

One  victim, LP Chong, 38, claimed that her 81-year-old auntie was slapped with a whooping RM35,410.31 bill after being accused of tampering with the meter in her shoplot in Pandan Perdana, Kuala Lumpur.

“We were shocked when we received the letter in February asking us to pay some RM35,000 within 14 days,” said Chong, a marketing manager, who helped her auntie resolve the issue as she was hospitalised.
The shoplot was rented out to a hair saloon operator.

“So I met TNB to discuss in March and they told me they changed the meter last October and found that we have been stealing electricity.

“They were very rude. They told me I must pay or go to court. They also said there was no way we could win in court,” said Chong, who was offered a 10% discount and to pay by instalment.

“But we could not pay such an amount. I asked if they had proof and they showed me some wires and a file but I did not understand those technical words.

“But they did promise me verbally that they won’t cut my electricity supply until my case goes to court,” she said.

Shocking amounts

However, on March 26, TNB sent a letter saying that electricity would be cut within 24 hours.
“They came, but I stopped them… after much discussion, my tenant begged and they allowed the electricity to continue,” she said.

“My tenants are paying about RM400 a month for electricity; how could it have come up to such an amount?

“My auntie would not have allowed such things. This is very unfair. I hope that more people would be aware of what’s happening,” said Chong.

Another complainant, Lai Weng Hing, a 45-year-old mechanic from an apartment in Winner Heights, Taman Desa Petaling, said he was perplexed when TNB sent him a bill of RM19,024.33 for tampering with the meter.

“But this is impossible. I have only two air-conditioners in my house of four people. We don’t use much electricity. My bill is usually RM90 to RM100 a month. Why do I want to tamper with the meter?” he said.

What’s stranger is that after TNB changed his old meter, supposedly to check for tamperings, the new meter found that bills were even cheaper (between RM80 and RM90).

It is learnt that TNB will be meeting with the complaints bureau on Monday. It is also believed that MCA is scheduling a meeting with Energy, Green Technology and Water Minister Peter Chin Fah Kui over the matter this month.

Tarif Elektrik: Ani Arope selar EPU, Gelar ‘Unit Penyamun Ekonomi’

Dari Keadilan Daily

Bekas Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif  Tenaga Nasional Berhad, Tan Sri Ani Arope menyalahkan Unit Perancang Ekonomi kerana menaikkan tarif elektrik.

Laman web The Malaysian Insider memetik Ani sebagai  berkata, TNB dipaksa menandatangani perjanjian berat sebelah, sejak hampir 20 tahun lalu.

Ani, yang menyifatkan EPU sebagai ‘Economic Plundering Unit’, memaksa TNB membeli tenaga elektrik daripada Pengeluar Tenaga bebas (IPP), Genting Sanyen sebanyak 14 sen kilowatt sejam (Kwj) walaupun wujud tawaran 12 sen n kemudiannya. IPP lain kemudian mengenakan caj 16 sen/ kwj.

“Kamu tidak perlu pergi sekolah perniagaan untuk memahami mengapa perlu kenaikan tarif elektrik- hanya melihat semula syarat diberikan kepada beberapa IPP,” kata Ani yang menerajui syarikat utiliti itu antara 1990 hingga 1996 dalam status di laman sosial, Facebook.

“Dengan fasal ambil-dan bayar, dan dengan 40 peratus rizab berlebihan yang kita ada hari ini, satu pihak hanya perlu menghasilkan setengah keupayaan pihak  lain dan dibayar 80 sen dengan kapasiti dipersetujui.
“Bagus EPU — Unit Plundering Ekonomi,” katanya mengejek unit ekonomi di bawah Jabatan Perdana Menteri itu.

Justeru, Ani meminta satu kajian semula syarat-syarat asal dengan IPP kerana perjanjian tenaga itu terus dilakukan.

Ani menimbulkan kegemparan pada 15 tahun lalu apabila meletakkan jawatan daripada jawatan pengerusi eksekutifnya kerana enggan menandatangani persetujuan tak seimbang dalam Perjanjian Pembelian Tenaga (PPA)

Ia menyebabkan kewujudan generasi pertama IPP seperti YTL Power Services, Powertek dan Malakoff,  semasa negara di bawah pentadbiran Dr Mahathir.

“TNB ialah budak belasahan. TNB tidak mempunyai kawalan harga yang ia perlu bayar kepada IPP. Pergi kepada punca masalahnya,” katanya.

Electricity up; govt grants for Proton

Electricity tariffs have been hiked by an average of 7 per cent because the government says it cannot afford “subsidies”. But Proton has been enjoying “research grants” from the government.
So who is subsidising whom in the case of Proton?

Source: Proton Annual Report 2010

* Note in the Annual Report 2010

The Government of Malaysia, as part of the Second Stimulus Package under the Ninth Malaysia Plan had within the ambit of the National Automotive Policy (‘NAP’) granted in 2009 a Research and Development (‘R&D’) grant to Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn. Bhd. (‘PONSB’), a wholly owned subsidiary company. One of the objectives of the NAP is to provide support and incentives to enhance competitiveness and capability of the automotive industry through the development of the latest and more sophisticated technology. PONSB, being a full fledged automotive manufacturer has complied with the requirements and had been allocated funds in the form of a R&D grant.
During the financial year (2010), PONSB has recognised R&D grant income amounting to RM143,688,000 (2009: RM80,656,000) based on R&D expenditure that did not meet the capitalisation criteria, as set out in the Group’s accounting policy (Note 3(d)(iii)).

For the quarter ended 31 March 2011:

Source: Proton's quarterly report to Bursa

Notice the difference in terminology: When it comes to government/public funds for essential services to the rakyat, they call them “subsidies”. But when it comes to funding for the corporate sector, they call it “support”, “incentives” and “grants”.

How TNB (and the public) got a raw deal

With an electricity tariff hike due to be announced on Monday, it might be useful to recall how the first generation of ‘independent power producers’ (IPPs) profited at TNB’s (and the Malaysian public’s) expense.
There’s a been a lot of talk, and rightly so, about the gas subsidies given to the IPPs, but not enough about the high price TNB has to pay to the IPPs for the electricity it has to take up – whether it needs it or not.
How did this Malaysian model of IPPs come into being, while TNB’s own expansion plans were cold-storaged in the early 1990s? As former TNB executive chairman Ani Arope says, “Ask our previous prime minister (Mahathir).” (Incidentally, Ani Arope studied at St Xavier’s Institution in Penang.)
This interview is from The Star:

Tuesday June 6, 2006
Ani: TNB got a raw deal
WHEN the Government decided to approve the request from Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) to raise electricity tariffs, the plight of the national utility took centre-stage. Naturally, the knee-jerk reaction among consumers was not favourable. The 12% rise in tariffs appears to have re-ignited the debate on how good the going is for independent power producers (IPPs) at the cost of the national utility’s cashflow. The imbalance between the generation side of the business and that of transmission and distribution has put a strain on TNB. To understand the privatisation of the power generation sector, one needs to take a look back in history to understand that the country’s IPPs came about as a result of the Government’s effort to address the issue of stable power supply after the landmark 1992 blackout. Lending a historical perspective to the issue of IPPs is former TNB executive chairman Tan Sri Ani Arope, who headed the national utility from 1990 to 1996. It was during his tenure that the first generation IPPs were created. StarBiz deputy news editor JAGDEV SINGH SIDHU has the story.

STARBIZ: What happened after the first major blackout in 1992?
Ani: TNB had plans in place to pump out more energy by building plants in Pasir Gudang and Paka. Financing was no problem and our credit standing was very high. We had the land acquired and were ready to move in and plant up.
But we were told by the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) that it had its own plans. We cautioned EPU that if those plants, which would take two years to complete, were not built, Malaysia would get another major blackout. When you have a place with 250 engineers, it does not make sense to say (the blackout) is because of poor planning. But the EPU said it had its own plans and we were told to surrender the land.
Then it surfaced that it wanted to privatise the power plants. I am not anti-IPPs per se. It is good to have other players but it has to be done fairly. It has to be fair to the consumers, not just TNB, which is a conduit. TNB, because of the electricity hike, has been treated as the whipping boy. The focus should be on the consumers.
When the generous terms were given to the IPPs, all my other peers around the world asked what was happening. They said they would like to have a share in the IPPs. They said (the contracts to IPPs) were “too darn generous.” (The terms) were grossly one sided.
How was the Malaysian model of IPPs created?
Ask our previous Prime Minister.

How was the process of negotiations with IPPs conducted?
There was no negotiation. Absolutely none. Instead of talking directly with the IPPs, TNB was sitting down with the EPU. And we were harassed, humiliated and talked down every time we went there. After that, my team was disappointed. The EPU just gave us the terms and asked us to agree. I said no way I would.
What about the pricing and terms of the contracts?
It was all fixed up. (They said) this is the price, this is the capacity charge and this is the number of years. They said you just take it and I refused to sign the contracts. And then, I was put out to pasture.
Why did you disagree with the terms?
It was grossly unfair. At 16 sen per unit (kWh) and with the take or pay situation, actually it was 23 sen per unit. With 23 sen, plus transmission and distribution costs, TNB would have had to charge the consumer no less than 30 sen per unit. If mixed with TNB’s cost, the cost would come down but that was at our expense because we were producing electricity at 8 sen a unit. We can deliver electricity at 17 sen per unit.
And then there is a capacity charge. Nobody produces excess electricity like Malaysia and it goes to waste because there are no batteries to store that power. TNB only needs a reserve of 15% to 20%.
TNB was producing electricity at 8 sen a unit. What should have been the right price for IPPs to sell to TNB?
Twelve sen. They could not beat our price as we had already amortised our assets. But for the new guys or even ourselves to come in then and (having) to meet interest charges and to make a small profit, it would cost 12 sen a unit.
This was what we told one IPP. The IPP agreed to it but the EPU said that unless the IPP raised its price, the contract would not be given to the IPP. So he got it for 14 sen per unit.
And then, there is the cost pass-through. If the price of fuel went up, the extra cost is passed through to us. And in other words, it is passed on to the consumer.
Under what terms would you have agreed to the IPPs being set up?
Have an independent buyer for the electricity and in one way, let TNB come in and bid for the plants. Get other people to come in. Get a commission to see (to) our needs and TNB can be one of the producers.
It is argued that the IPPs’ contracts are too lucrative but there are IPPs in other countries in Africa or Asia that have better terms.
There are IPPs charging 50 to 60 US cents per unit but they use diesel. Take our own situation and compare oranges with oranges. Then it is fair. Do whatever is fair.

How were you affected by the process of awarding the IPP contracts?
I felt sick. It was morally wrong and not fair. If it is legal and not fair, I will not do it. If it is fair and illegal, I still won’t do it. It has to be legal and fair.
We work for the consumers, workers and shareholders. TNB is morally obligated to these three, but the consumers come first, otherwise we won’t be around. It is then the workers and the shareholders.
When I said that, they said ‘Dia ingat bapak dia-punya’ (He thinks this is his father’s company). This job is an amanah (trust). You are entrusted with this responsibility and you carry it out to the best of your ability. I do not want somebody to come and urinate on my grave. In the Malay culture, that is about the worst insult they can do to a man.
Do you think you did the right thing by not signing the agreements?
Absolutely.
How should a contract with the IPPs work?
In Australia, they call the IPPs and ask “what is your price”. They will pay the IPP that offers the best price. What they could have done is to throw the net wider and ask everybody (if they) are good, it would be awarded to them. But in our case, the contracts were ready-made and we were asked to sign.
What is your view on the impending renegotiation with the IPPs?
It has to be legal and fair. If we were to negotiate unfairly and illegally, the whole world will be looking at us and they will say “don’t sign anything with Malaysia because if things go against the country, the Government will void the agreement”.
We have to look at this very carefully.
But what we can do now is to say, can we bring down the capacity charge. Anything above the 15% reserve margin, we will call for bids.
The second thing is that the IPPs would have by now paid up their whole capital investments in their plants and it is all gravy (or profit) from now. Could we not bring this down a bit? Instead of paying a small amount to (a special fund), why not increase the (payment) for future planting up? In that manner, we can control the price of electricity. Otherwise, it’s going to escalate.
Who in your opinion should get involved in the negotiations?
The consumers should be there. For me, you should get a very independent body. Then, you can bring in TNB, the IPPs, the consumers and Energy Commission. But these bodies and consumers should not make a judgment.

So, pray tell, who is subsidising whom?

Blackouts in Parliament

The power supply in Parliament was interrupted twice during the ongoing sitting of the Dewan Rakyat, bringing the proceedings to a halt.

The first power failure occured at about 11.50am when Agriculture and Agro-based Industries Minister Noh Omar was winding up of the Supply Bill (2011).

After the electricity supply was restored shortly after, another blackout occurred which was promptly resolved.

By then the audio and visual equipments are unable to function and are currently being repaired.

Prior to power disruption, the Dewan Rakyat had resolved to extend today's sitting to 10.30pm. It is unknown whether there will be further extensions due to the blackouts.

NB face off with villagers again, three held

Chaos again erupted at Rawang New Village as Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) workers began construction work on high tension cable towers in the area.

Backed by about 50 police personnel, about a dozen TNB workers appeared at the village unannounced and began work at about 9am.

According to eyewitnesses, the TNB workers were trying to fill up a trench to allow heavy machinery to reach the site.

This prompted scores of villagers to stop them from doing so and a fracas broke out.

A TNB worker fell in the ditch during the ensuing melee, resulting in the arrest of three individuals. They were a villager and two aides of Rawang state assemblyperson Gan Pei Nei.

Eyewitnesses claim that the TNB worker's fall was an accident and not the fault of those arrested.

They have been brought to the Rawang police station.

'Still in negotiations'

Following this, villagers remained at the site, monitoring the workers' activities.

At about 2pm, Selangor exco member Elizabeth Wong arrived at the scene and presented TNB workers with a document ordering them to stop work.

Wong explained that the state government was still in negotiations with TNB over the situation in the village and thus the latter should not begin work.

A lawyer who represented TNB told Wong that since the Federal Court had ruled in favour of the utility giant, it had the right to begin construction work.

After failing to convince the workers, Wong contacted TNB vice-president Rozimi Remeli, urging him to discuss the matter with the Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim. This too proved futile.

Municipal officers to the rescue

At around 4.30pm, Selayang Municipal Council officers arrived at the scene and said that the contruction works were in violation of council bylaws and thus TNB must stop work.

Although TNB workers heeded the council officers, they have already performed some piling work and placed a barbed wire fence around the site.

TNB is attempting to resume the construction of high tension cable towers which was halted five years ago, after villagers mounted a legal challenge to stop the project.

The matter was eventually brought to the Federal Court which ruled in TNB's favour, but villagers still resisted attempts by the company's engineering team to resume works in March.

The Selangor state government attempted to intervene in the matter, offering TNB an alternative site for the towers and wanted to deliberate on the matter further through a joint committee, which will also involve the residents.

Photo gallery