Heyyy..!


https://worldofbuzz.com/tenants-in-seremban...removing-doors/

Seremban PPR Flat Tenants with Up to RM15K Unpaid Rent Get Their Doors Removed by City Council

This post has been edited by hspace: Dec 20 2024, 10:57 AM

Can't be la, it must be profitable. Just going back a few years
TNB nett profit Fiscal Year 2020 = 3.4 Billion Ringgit
FY2021 = 3.66 B
FY2022 = 3.46 B
FY2023 = 2.77 B
FY2024, until Q3, as of 30 Sept = 1.58 B
All these figures are profit, not revenue.

I only wonder how much the initial cost to set up the distribution infrastructure is for a new provider. Maybe if set up infra for let's say, Melaka, costs RM 50 B, and then profit every year is RM 1 B then not worth it. But then I have absolutely no clue to what the costs are. For TNB I guess it was zero coming from the government and then being privatized.

Someone once told me the same thing at /kopitiam. I reminded him to also check how much dividend TNB issued to their share holders and how much was retained as profit for internal investment. For last year 2023, as announced in March 2024 announcement, after paying out dividend, TNB just retained about 100m for internal expenditure.

You can Google or check their dividend data at klse, I was a shareholder of tnb share until I sold it when the price raised to 15 few months ago.

You want to know how much for initial cost, I can tell you it is at least 10 billion yearly, why? Coz TNB is spending about 7B a year just to expand the grid network under capex. This does not include maintenance, rehab, refurbish, replace which is under Opex instead of capex

https://theedgemalaysia.com/node/736792

Even if we say small scale, it will at least be 2B, you can't compare their profit with TNB profit as they need to compete in terms of pricing and customer need to change to them.

Fact is nobody wants to do the grid business, even when the it's not restricted. What we see here is private companies only want to set up power plants and sell electric to tnb for a fixed price, easy money, sure earn, no need deal with clients, no need maintain a large network, that's why we have so many private power plants and solar plants.

Gov even out of idea and forced TNB to allow third party access (which caused tnb share price to drop for awhile) so that people can still sell electric without setting up the grid network coz nobody want to build a second network.

If so profit why nobody do? Why no cronies do? We all know if profit sure cronies enter. Why you think power plant so many IPP cronies? Coz it's profitable.

No, no, don't get me wrong. I believe what you say. I think your analysis that IPPs only want to sell power back to TNB is spot on. Though I still think that TNB is profitable because they inherited the set-up of the grid from the government, and didn't have to set it up themselves. No one would want to do it now.

That is the danger of registering under tenant name, its not under landlord s name. Landlord cant simply ask to cut.
Conclusion, No advantage at all registering under tenant name. In fact its stupid

Sounded logical. Meter better in LL's name and that allows him to receive the bills to do monitoring. And request service cut off if necessary. No need to go begging TNB to do cut off when meter not in LL's name.

If meter in Tenant's name, it is only logical ONLY the tenant can request cut off. Otherwise, if I don't like your face, I can also go ask TNB to cut off your electricity and let you sweat tonight with no air cond

What if a stranger stole your car and do speeding? Car owner also responsible?

UPDATE Legal Case - TNB v Chew Thai Kay 2022

TNB cannot go after landlord. Must go after the registered meter owner.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Federal Court (‘FC’): Tenaga Nasional Berhad (‘TNB’) has no power to disconnect electricity supply under section 38(1) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (‘ESA’) when there was no continuing offence under section 37 of the ESA

Section 38(1) of the ESA gives TNB, as licensee under the ESA, the power to disconnect electricity supply from premises if a person employed by TNB finds on the premises evidence which gives reasonable grounds for him to believe that an offence has been committed under sections 37(1), (3) or (14) of the ESA.



Issue

Does TNB have the power under section 38(1) of the ESA to disconnect electricity supply from premises when the meter alleged to have been tampered with has been rectified and replaced? This issue confronted the FC in Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Chew Thai Kay & Anor [2022] MLJU 5 (Judgment dated 4.1.2022).



Case summary and decision

TNB inspected its meter installation at premises operating a business of seafood processing on 7.6.2018 and found that there had been tampering of the meter. The meter was then rectified by TNB and replaced, after which TNB continued to supply electricity to the premises. TNB, thereafter, issued a Notice of Disconnection intending to disconnect supply of electricity to the premises on 3.7.2018. In response, the Respondents filed an action against TNB in the High Court (‘HC’) for orders, including that the Notice of Disconnection was unlawful. An application for an interim injunction (‘Interim Injunction’) was also made to prevent TNB from disconnecting the supply of electricity to the premises pending the disposal of the action against TNB. The HC granted the Interim Injunction, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. On appeal by TNB to the FC, in a unanimous decision delivered by Azahar Mohamed CJM (Mohd Zawawi, Vernon Ong, Zaleha Yusof and Rhodzariah Bujang FCJJ concurring), the appeal was dismissed. The learned CJM carried out a detailed discussion of the law pre and post the amendment of section 38(1) and came to the conclusion that the amended version under consideration did not alter the law — once a tampered meter had been rectified by TNB and the offence of meter tampering was no longer continuing, TNB had no power to issue the Notice of Disconnection under section 38(1) of the ESA.