We saw a digital corridor.

Back in 2023, while leading Strategy & Business Development at PETRONAS Gas Berhad, management asked us a simple question:

How do we create more value from an asset we already own?

Not by building another pipeline.

Not by increasing gas throughput.

But by looking at the PGU Right-of-Way through an entirely different lens.

That journey eventually became what is today known as LinkaranFibre.

Starting With the Problem, Not the Technology

The answer did not appear overnight.

For almost a year, we worked through the problem using PETRONAS' Working Backwards methodology. Rather than beginning with technology, we began with the customer, the market need and the problem that required solving.

We were entering a business that was new to us, so learning became part of the strategy.

We were fortunate to receive valuable guidance from En. Rashidi and En. Mohamed Asri Jaafar, as well as support from MDEC, especially Mr. Tze Meng Tan, who helped us better understand the fibre business, its ecosystem, customer requirements and market potential.

That knowledge helped us move from a broad idea to a more credible business proposition.

Making the Future Visible

Then came the harder part: turning the concept into an investable case.

Ideas became business models. Sketches became engineering layouts. We developed a physical replica of how the system could work, supported by a large visual illustration to help management and Board members see the opportunity more clearly.

Because sometimes, people do not reject an idea because it lacks merit.

They reject it because the future has not yet been made visible.

From Blueprint to Construction

Today, seeing LinkaranFibre progressing beyond Final Investment Decision and into construction is immensely satisfying.

• An 880km cross-border fibre network.
• A 288-core ultra-low-latency infrastructure.
• Secure and diverse routes built along existing gas pipeline rights-of-way.

A new digital backbone supporting data centres, hyperscalers, carriers, enterprises and the wider ASEAN digital economy.

It is a reminder that innovation is not always about inventing a new asset.

Sometimes, it begins by seeing an existing asset differently.

The past belongs to those who helped shape the idea. The future now belongs to the team bringing it to life.

My sincere congratulations and best wishes to everyone carrying LinkaranFibre from blueprint to reality.

I joined on 1 August 1998.

Two dates, separated by 28 years.

I still remember walking through the main entrance of the PETRONAS Twin Towers on my first day. The building had just been recognised as the tallest in the world, and standing at the foot of it as a young Malaysian engineer, I felt something closer to awe than confidence.

I did not yet understand what the towers were built on. That took the next 28 years to learn.

On paper, it is a period of service. In reality, it has been an education in operations, business, leadership, systems and, most importantly, people.

The roles changed. The responsibilities grew. The challenges became more complex.

But one lesson remained constant.

Nothing meaningful is delivered by one person alone.

Behind every safe operation, commercial agreement, strategic decision and milestone is a wider system of people. Some lead from the front. Some work quietly behind the scenes. Some challenge our thinking. Others correct us when we get things wrong.

Every part matters.

Over these 28 years, I had the privilege of learning from many leaders, mentors, colleagues and team members. Some placed their trust in me. Some pushed me beyond what I thought I could do. Some offered honest feedback when I needed it most.

To all of you, thank you.

If my words, decisions or actions ever disappointed or hurt anyone, I sincerely apologise. Experience does not mean having all the answers. If anything, experience makes us more conscious of complexity, consequences and our own limitations.

PETRONAS taught me to look beyond the visible outcome.

A reliable system requires discipline behind it. A sound commercial arrangement requires operational reality beneath it. A strong institution requires capable people, clear purpose and shared responsibility.

That lesson will remain with me.

I leave with gratitude for the opportunities, the difficult assignments, the friendships, the mistakes and the lessons. Each played a part in shaping how I think and who I am today.

Tomorrow, my role will change.

But the responsibility to keep learning, to share what I have learnt and to remain useful does not end with a job title.

Knowledge only creates value when it is passed on. Experience only matters when it helps others navigate the road ahead.

One chapter ends today.

The friendships continue. The learning continues. The responsibility to contribute continues.

Twenty-eight years can be measured in time.

Its real value is measured by the people who shaped us and the value we continue to create for others.

What have the people around you taught you that no job title ever could?

31 July 2026

Mohd Effandi

But this is not really about what we ate. It is about who shared the table with me.

We are colleagues in PETRONAS, working in the same division to commercialise technology. We came from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, yet worked toward common objectives, navigated disagreements and solved problems together.

Diversity was not a slogan. It was simply part of professional life.

None of us had to minimise our identity to make others comfortable. We respected one another not because our differences disappeared, but because those differences were not treated as threats.

A Question Currently Going Around

That made me reflect on a question that is currently viral in Malaysia: why does the term Tanah Melayu so quickly invite accusations of racism?

Perhaps we have begun to confuse equality with historical sameness, as though a shared country can only be fair when every community has precisely the same historical relationship with it.

But citizenship does not require identical histories.

Malaysia did not emerge from a vacuum.

Before Malaysia was formed in 1963, the Federation of Malaya, Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, had already achieved independence in 1957. Sabah and Sarawak then joined Malaya to form Malaysia.

Recognising this sequence does not diminish Sabah or Sarawak. Their participation made Malaysia possible. Nor does acknowledging the history of Tanah Melayu diminish the citizenship of other Malaysians.

These truths can coexist.

Malaysia is our shared national home. Tanah Melayu is one of its foundational historical roots. Sabah and Sarawak are founding partners without whom Malaysia would not exist.

A MyKad answers one question: who is a citizen today?

History answers another: how did this nation come into being?

We need both.

Unity Does Not Require Amnesia

A Chinese or Indian Malaysian does not become less Malaysian when the history of Tanah Melayu is acknowledged. Equally, a Malay should not have to become historically anonymous to prove acceptance of diversity.

Unity does not require amnesia.

The stronger form of pluralism is not one in which every history is flattened until no distinction remains. It is one in which we are secure enough in our identities to recognise the histories of others without feeling excluded by them.

That was what our lunch table represented.

We did not have to become identical before we could sit together. We needed respect, confidence and the maturity to accept that people may arrive at the same national table through different historical journeys. (I arrived so late yesterday, sorry guys 😅)

Malaysia does not need to choose between historical memory and a shared future.

We need the maturity to hold both.

Data centres may appear to sit outside that conversation. They host cloud platforms, process artificial intelligence workloads and support our growing digital economy.

But before a data centre can process data, the electricity system must deliver power, reliably, continuously and at scale.

That brings data centres directly into the energy conversation.

4.6 GW Is an Energy Number, Not a Digital One

MIDA recently reported that Malaysia has approximately 4.6 GW of data-centre capacity planned or under construction.

On the surface, this represents significant digital investment. To the electricity system, however, it represents a large, concentrated and round-the-clock source of demand.

A data centre does not operate only when the sun shines. Its servers, cooling systems and network equipment must remain available throughout the day.

Generation must be available. Transmission must be ready. Fuel supply must be secure. Renewable energy must be integrated. Battery storage must support flexibility. Cooling and water must also be managed responsibly.

Every part is connected.

Commercial Procurement Is Not Physical Delivery

CRESS can allow a data centre to procure renewable electricity commercially. But as I explained previously, commercial procurement and physical delivery are different things.

Once electricity enters the national grid, it becomes part of a shared system. The System Operator must continue balancing supply and demand in real time, regardless of the contract behind the transaction.

Renewable energy can reduce carbon intensity. Battery storage can manage variability and support grid stability. Gas-fired generation may continue providing dispatchable capacity when variable sources are unavailable.

None works in isolation.

The Questions Worth Asking

This raises important questions. Who should pay for the grid reinforcement required by a large new load? Should data centres remain passive consumers or become active participants through storage, demand response and long-term energy planning?

These are not arguments against data-centre investment. Malaysia should continue attracting high-value digital activity.

The opportunity is to ensure that this growth strengthens the energy ecosystem through renewable development, grid modernisation, storage capability, technical talent and local industry participation.

The question is not simply how many data centres Malaysia can attract.

The better question is: what energy architecture must Malaysia build so that digital growth strengthens, rather than merely consumes, the national energy system?

Design the energy system, not just the data centre.

Because KWAP invested RM163.4 million in the company. This is not merely a private venture-capital loss. KWAP manages public-sector retirement funds. When public money is exposed, the public has the right to ask: what was examined, who challenged the assumptions, and what was independently verified on the ground?

The lesson goes far beyond one investment.

We Need System Change, Not Just New Contracts

In my earlier writings on the post-GFA environment, gas allocation, third-party access, LNG infrastructure and electricity-market reform, I have argued that Malaysia does not simply need new contracts.

We need system change.

But a system cannot be redesigned only by those who understand policy papers, legal structures and financial models. The people who have operated it must also be in the room.

Energy decisions require subject-matter experts who have worked with pipelines, compressors, LNG terminals, power plants, dispatch, maintenance shutdowns, nominations, balancing, metering and emergency response.

Not merely as technical reviewers after the commercial structure has been decided. They must be involved from the beginning.

The Difference Between the Numbers and the System

A spreadsheet may show available capacity.

An operator may know that pressure profiles, compressor limitations or maintenance windows make that capacity unreliable.

A contract may promise gas delivery.

Someone with operational experience will ask what happens during upstream curtailment, a terminal outage, pipeline congestion or a sudden rise in power demand.

A financial model may show an attractive return.

A plant engineer may recognise that the operating assumptions cannot be sustained.

That is the difference between understanding the numbers and understanding the system that produces them.

The Shared Blind Spot

The danger is not only fraud. It is decision-making that becomes too comfortable in the meeting room.

When prominent advisers, investors or institutions are involved, people assume someone else has tested the difficult questions. But respected institutions reviewing the same flawed information do not create independent truth. They may simply create a shared blind spot.

Institutionalise the Role of Experienced SMEs

This is why the next phase of Malaysia's energy reform must institutionalise the role of experienced SMEs.

Walk the plant. Visit the terminal.

Speak to control-room operators.

Test the system during abnormal conditions, not only under ideal assumptions.

Follow the molecule from source to burner tip.

We do not need fewer economists, lawyers, financiers or consultants.

We need them working alongside people who know what happens when the model meets the machinery.

Major decisions involving public money and national infrastructure should never be protected by documents alone.

They must be protected by experience, judgement and operational truth.

Design the system, not just the contract.

Not every investment challenge is an investment problem. Sometimes, it is a governance problem.

According to reports, the enforcement action followed inspections that found activities beyond the approved licence scope, alongside investigations involving licensing compliance, immigration matters and identity-related allegations.

Regardless of how the investigations conclude, one principle deserves attention.

Welcoming Capital Is Not the Same as Governing It

A country that welcomes investment must also be capable of regulating it. For decades, governments around the world have competed to attract capital by offering incentives, infrastructure and market access.

But sophisticated investors look beyond tax incentives. They ask, are the rules clear? Are they applied consistently? Can institutions enforce them fairly?

Ironically, strong enforcement does not weaken investment confidence. It strengthens it. When governments demonstrate that laws apply equally to everyone, domestic or foreign, investors gain confidence that the market operates on predictable rules rather than discretionary decisions.

Why This Matters Now

This is particularly relevant as Malaysia positions itself as a destination for digital infrastructure, AI, data centres and knowledge-based industries.

These sectors are highly mobile. They can relocate across borders with relative ease.

That makes governance a strategic asset. Welcoming global talent, technology and investment should never come at the expense of regulatory integrity, national security or institutional credibility.

The statement by the Johor Menteri Besar captured this balance well: "Johor welcomes quality investments, but no investor or company is above the law."

Markets Function Best When Institutions Are Trusted

As someone who has spent much of my career involved in policy frameworks for regulated infrastructure and energy markets, I have learnt one recurring lesson, markets function best when institutions are trusted.

Investment is built on opportunity. Sustainable investment is built on trust.

And trust ultimately depends on the willingness of institutions to enforce the rules they establish, firmly, fairly and consistently.

Because in the end, the strongest investment proposition a nation can offer is not merely lower costs or better incentives. It is the confidence that the rule of law, institutional integrity and national sovereignty remain non-negotiable.

Together, they tell the story of how Malaysia's gas market has evolved.

This week, another piece of that story quietly emerged. TNB has issued a Request for Information (RFI) to develop its strategy across the gas supply value chain. While it is not yet a tender, the RFI seeks industry input to shape a future strategic study.

On the surface, it looks like a procurement exercise. I believe it is much more than that.

Four Drivers Reshaping the Market

The opening paragraphs highlight four powerful drivers reshaping Malaysia's gas market: changing domestic gas supply, increasing LNG dependency, market liberalisation and the anticipated expiry of the existing GFA.

Those four developments explain why the conversation is changing.

For years, the challenge was largely about securing gas supply. Today, the challenge is understanding the entire gas value chain, from supply and LNG to commercial structures, regulation and strategic positioning.

Four Bigger Questions

Interestingly, TNB is not merely asking consultants to study the market. The RFI asks four much bigger questions:

• How will the gas market evolve?
• Where should TNB participate across the value chain?
• What policy and regulatory changes will be needed?
• Is the organisation ready to execute that strategy?

That is systems thinking.

Rather than optimising one contract or one asset, the objective is to understand how every part of the gas ecosystem connects and where TNB should position itself in a rapidly evolving market.

Beyond Buying Gas

To me, this is the most significant signal in the document. The discussion is no longer centred on buying gas. It is about building resilience, managing risk and creating strategic options across the value chain.

Whether you work in gas, electricity, infrastructure or regulation, the lesson is the same. When an industry enters structural transition, competitive advantage no longer comes from negotiating a better contract alone. It comes from understanding the system before redesigning your place within it.

Perhaps that is the real significance of this RFI. It is less about appointing a consultant. It is more about asking the right questions before the next chapter of Malaysia's gas market begins.

Markets evolve. Contracts expire. Strategy begins by understanding the system.

Design the system, not just the contract.

In late 2014, I served on the PEMANDU team for Tanzania's Big Results Now (BRN) initiative, supporting their Gas Master Plan. This project has left a lasting impression on me, reinforcing a fundamental truth: natural resources do not automatically create prosperity. Systems and ecosystems do.

The Parallel Paths

Malaysia and Tanzania entered the natural gas era at roughly the same time. Malaysia discovered significant offshore gas in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Tanzania made its first major discovery at Songo Songo in 1974, followed by Mnazi Bay in 1982.

Today, Tanzania sits on an enviable resource base of roughly 57 Tcf. Yet after four decades, the development trajectories of these two nations look remarkably different.

Beyond the Wellhead

PETRONAS didn't just extract molecules. It built processing plants, transmission pipelines, power frameworks, petrochemical complexes and technical institutions. It nurtured local engineering capability and expanded to over 100 countries.

PETRONAS wasn't merely developing gas fields. It was anchoring a national ecosystem.

Meanwhile, Tanzania is making steady progress. Gas from Songo Songo and Mnazi Bay now powers domestic electricity and local industries, while negotiations continue for its highly anticipated LNG project. The foundations are taking shape.

The Power of the "Lab"

Sitting in those BRN labs in 2014, the core challenge became clear: the conversation was never strictly about gas.

Our lab included specialists from PETRONAS, Telekom Malaysia, UEM, TalentCorp, PEMANDU and Tanzanian ministries. Why? Because every infrastructure decision was codependent. Industrial zones needed roads. Power plants needed gas. Gas demand relied on industries. Industries required talent. Investors required regulatory certainty. None of this could be planned in a vacuum.

Changing the Question

When leaders ask, "How do we monetize our gas?" they are not asking the right first question.

The better question is: "What national system must exist before this gas can create lasting economic value?"

Discovery is merely a geological success. National prosperity only begins when institutions, infrastructure, markets, regulation and talent move in lockstep.

This applies equally to LNG, hydrogen, biomethane, CCS and renewables. Without systems thinking, resources rarely deliver their full potential.

In the energy sector: infrastructure moves molecules. Ecosystems move nations.

BRN was Tanzania's adoption of the Big Fast Results methodology, supported by PEMANDU, to translate its Development Vision 2025 into measurable delivery. Over three years, the programme conducted 14 labs and prioritised five Key Results Areas.

Not a Conventional Oil and Gas Study

What made the assignment memorable was the composition of the team. Alongside the two PETRONAS gas SMEs were two specialists from Telekom Malaysia, UEM advisers on roads and logistics, TalentCorp, PEMANDU consultants, and our Tanzanian counterparts from government and industry.

This was not a conventional oil and gas study. It reflected a simple truth: a gas molecule has little economic value until an entire system enables it to reach productive demand.

The questions we had to ask went well beyond the resource itself. Who will consume the gas? Which power plants and industries can anchor demand? What roads, logistics and telecommunications must be available? What talent and institutional capabilities must be built?

A Lesson That Has Stayed With Me

That experience reinforced a lesson that has remained with me throughout my career: energy strategy fails when it is planned in silos.

A pipeline without demand is stranded steel. A gas field without a functioning power and industrial market is locked value. A master plan without accountable execution is only a document.

The BRN lab approach brought policymakers, government agencies, state-owned enterprises, technical specialists and the private sector into the same room. Dependencies had to be exposed. Bottlenecks had to be resolved. Owners, timelines and measurable outcomes had to be identified.

That is what systems planning looks like.

What This Means for Malaysia Today

Looking back, Tanzania did not merely need a Gas Master Plan. It needed a national development architecture in which gas could become one of the engines of industrialisation, electrification and broader economic progress.

The same principle remains relevant to Malaysia's energy transition today. Whether we are discussing LNG, biomethane, hydrogen, renewable power or third-party access, technology is only one layer. Infrastructure, regulation, market design, demand, talent and execution must move together.

The question is never simply, "Do we have the resource?" The more important question is, "Have we designed the system capable of converting that resource into lasting public value?"

Design the system, not just the pipeline.

One of my responsibilities was leading the operations teams and managing the novation of commercial agreements from PETRONAS to PEGT. This involved extensive engagements with customers and other stakeholders.

It was a tough assignment.

Not merely because the agreements had to be transferred properly, but because almost nobody knew PEGT. More importantly, very few understood what a Gas Shipper was or how Third Party Access was supposed to work.

Why TPA Separates the Roles

Under the traditional integrated model, the same organisation could be involved in sourcing, transporting and selling gas. TPA separates these functions so that different suppliers can access common infrastructure under regulated terms.

The pipeline operator manages the infrastructure. The Gas Shipper manages the commercial movement of gas through it.

A shipper sources gas from domestic producers, LNG portfolios or other suppliers. It books transportation and regasification capacity, submits gas nominations, manages balancing obligations, administers supply contracts and ensures that the required quantity reaches the customer.

In simple terms, if the gas pipeline is a highway, the shipper is the logistics planner. It determines what enters the network, how much is transported, where it is delivered and how supply commitments are fulfilled. Its real strength lies in portfolio management.

From One Shipper to a Market of Shippers

Today, PEGT is no longer the only licensed shipper in Malaysia. Other licensed participants include companies associated with the power sector, international energy companies, gas retailers and independent energy players.

Customers are no longer expected to depend solely on whoever owns the infrastructure. In principle, different shippers can compete to supply gas through the same regulated network.

But the number of licensed shippers alone does not determine whether a market is truly competitive. Some may have licences but limited supply portfolios. Some may focus on specific customers or market segments. Others may have stronger access to LNG, domestic gas, infrastructure capacity or credit support.

The real competition is therefore not about who owns the pipeline. It is about who can build the most resilient portfolio, manage uncertainty and provide reliable gas at a commercially sustainable price.

The Deeper Purpose of TPA

Infrastructure should remain open and regulated. Competition should take place in sourcing, portfolio optimisation, commercial innovation and customer service. Shippers connect those molecules to markets.

And good market design determines whether competition exists only on paper, or delivers real value to customers.

In one of my earlier articles, I wrote about Third Party Access (TPA) in the gas industry. Its objective was straightforward: the gas pipeline remains a common infrastructure, but more than one supplier can use it to deliver gas to customers.

Malaysia is now introducing a similar concept in the electricity sector through the Corporate Renewable Energy Supply Scheme (CRESS).

At first glance, CRESS sounds simple. A company wants to buy renewable electricity directly from a solar or renewable energy developer instead of purchasing everything from the traditional electricity supply arrangement.

But here is the interesting part. Electricity cannot be physically traced from one generator to one customer. Once electricity enters the national grid, it mixes with electricity from every other generator. The grid then continuously balances supply and demand in real time.

So how can a factory in Selangor claim it is buying electricity from a specific solar farm in Kedah?

The Physical Reality of the Grid

The answer is that the contract and the physical delivery are two different things.

Commercially, the customer signs an agreement with the renewable energy developer. Physically, the electricity still flows through the national grid, while the System Operator ensures the grid remains stable and reliable.

This is why CRESS should not be viewed as bypassing the electricity system. Rather, it allows greater customer choice while continuing to rely on the existing grid as the common platform.

It is conceptually similar to how Gas TPA opened access to the gas pipeline without duplicating pipeline infrastructure. The competition takes place in the commercial arrangement, not by building parallel networks.

Same Philosophy, Greater Complexity

Of course, electricity is more complex than gas. The sun does not always shine, while factories continue operating around the clock.

Someone must still ensure sufficient generation reserves, maintain system frequency, balance intermittent renewable generation and keep the lights on.

That is why CRESS is not merely about allowing companies to buy renewable electricity. It is about finding the right balance between customer choice, market competition and system reliability.

The Bigger Lesson

As Malaysia gradually liberalises its energy sector, from Gas TPA to CRESS, we are seeing a common philosophy emerge: open access does not remove the need for system coordination. In fact, the more participants we introduce into the market, the more important that coordination becomes.

Perhaps that is the bigger lesson.

The future of energy is not simply about creating more competition. It is about designing market frameworks that allow competition to flourish without compromising the reliability of the system that everyone depends on.

Neither can rainfall, renewable generation, plant outages or fuel prices.

Yet a gas supplier cannot plan production, LNG imports and pipeline capacity based on "we'll take whatever the grid happens to need."

This was precisely the problem addressed by the Allocated Quantity to the Power Sector (AQPS) under Malaysia's Gas Framework Agreement (GFA).

AQPS is the daily quantity of gas allocated to the power sector, while the Annual Contract Quantity is simply the sum of AQPS over an entire year.

Managing Uncertainty Without Eliminating Accountability

At first glance, AQPS appears to be another gas nomination mechanism. In reality, it solves a much bigger problem: managing uncertainty without eliminating accountability.

The Single Buyer decides which plants are dispatched to meet electricity demand. Those dispatch decisions determine how much gas the power sector consumes. This means gas demand changes constantly as electricity demand, generation mix, outages and system conditions evolve.

A fixed annual gas commitment would be too rigid. Complete flexibility would transfer almost all demand risk to the gas supplier. AQPS strikes a balance between both.

However, flexibility does not mean zero commitment. The power sector must still take a certain percentage of the net ACQ under the Take-or-Pay provision.

The result is simple. The power system retains operational flexibility. PETRONAS receives a commercially credible demand commitment.

Is AQPS Unique?

Many countries prioritise domestic or regulated gas for electricity generation. India pooled domestic gas and LNG to support gas-fired power plants. Indonesia allocates domestic gas to the power sector under government policy. Nigeria imposes domestic gas supply obligations for electricity generation.

However, I have not found another publicly documented framework combining all these features into a single market design, i.e. systemic: sector-wide gas allocation, daily allocated quantities building into an annual contractual commitment, periodic re-forecasting and mutual confirmation, and centralised nominations with portfolio-level Take-or-Pay obligations.

None of these mechanisms is individually new. The innovation lies in how they were integrated to support a centrally dispatched electricity market.

Why AQPS Still Matters

AQPS recognised a fundamental truth: electricity demand is uncertain, but uncertainty cannot mean the absence of commitment.

AQPS provided that balance. Commit annually. Adjust periodically. Nominate daily. Settle deviations transparently.

As Malaysia moves into the post-GFA era, the terminology may change. But the underlying challenge remains exactly the same.

How do we balance system flexibility with commercial certainty? That, in my view, is the real legacy of AQPS.

Each part tells the same story. Gas-to-power is not one contract. It is an ecosystem, which requires systemic thinking to understand and find solutions.

This time, I want to touch on regasification.

When Malaysia developed its first LNG regasification terminal in Sungai Udang, Melaka, it marked an important shift. Before that, gas supply to the power sector was largely seen through the lens of domestic gas. With regasification, LNG entered the Peninsular Malaysia gas system. That changed the equation.

Later, Pengerang added another regasification point in Johor. Now, with recent announcements on new regasification terminals in Lumut and Yan, the direction is clearer: Malaysia is preparing for a gas system where LNG will play a bigger role.

LNG Is Not "Just Another Gas"

This is important for post-GFA discussion, because LNG is not just "another source of gas." It comes with a different commercial discipline.

LNG requires cargo planning, terminal access, storage management, regasification capacity, shipping windows, foreign exchange exposure, international price movement and strict contractual commitments. Domestic gas and LNG do not behave the same commercially.

LNG can strengthen supply security. It can diversify sources. It can support demand growth. But it can also make the gas-to-power system more complex and expensive if not planned properly.

This is why post-GFA cannot be discussed only as a replacement of an old framework. It must be discussed as a new architecture for a more LNG-dependent future.

Why This Needs System-Level Thinking

If gas for power becomes more LNG-linked, the system must answer harder questions. These questions cannot be left to individual contracts alone. They need system-level thinking.

A power plant may need gas. A shipper may have LNG. A regas terminal may have capacity. The pipeline may have constraints. The grid may dispatch differently from forecast. And the consumer still expects affordable electricity.

All these moving parts must be aligned. That is why a regasification terminal is not just infrastructure. It is part of the post-GFA puzzle.

Path to a Disciplined Framework

The more LNG enters the system, the more disciplined the framework must become.

Planning must improve. Forecasting must improve. Risk allocation must be clearer. Data sharing must be stronger. Coordination between gas procurement, regasification, PGCC, GSO and Single Buyer must become more integrated.

That is why understanding regasification operations matters in the post-GFA discussion. It is about making sure LNG can support the country without creating new loose ends in the gas-to-power system.

I told him honestly: "I have not come to the solution part yet."

Not because there is no solution. But because the right solution cannot be developed casually in a LinkedIn comment section. It requires proper engagement. It requires the right stakeholders in the same room.

Because post-GFA is not a single-party issue. It is a system issue.

My intent in writing these articles is not to prescribe a final answer. My intent is to create awareness, explain the moving parts, and invite better thinking on how this subject should be approached.

AFA Is One Part, Not the Full Answer

My friend then raised Automatic Fuel Adjustment, or AFA, under the Incentive-Based Regulation framework.

AFA allows generation cost to reflect actual market conditions. When fuel prices or exchange rates move, the adjustment may appear as a rebate or surcharge to consumers.

That is useful. But AFA alone is not the full answer. It is one part of the architecture. Post-GFA is not only about tariff adjustment. It is also about gas procurement, LNG exposure, pipeline deliverability, power dispatch, market conduct, third-party access, supply security, risk allocation and consumer affordability.

If we jump too quickly to one tool, we may solve one pain point but miss the larger system.

Symptomatic vs. Systemic Solutions

A symptomatic solution may ease one problem today but create another problem tomorrow.

A systemic solution asks a deeper question: how do all the moving parts work together?

Before proposing the final mechanism, we must first understand the pain points clearly, methodologically. This is why post-GFA requires system design, not only contract design.

AFA may become an important part of the solution. But it must sit within a wider framework that aligns fuel cost, dispatch behaviour, gas supply security, infrastructure access and tariff impact. Otherwise, we may have a mechanism that adjusts cost, but not a system that manages risk and supply security.

Energy security is not built by one instrument alone. It is built by structure, coordination, disciplined engagement and the humility to understand the system before rushing to solve it.

Each article points to the same idea: gas-to-power is not one contract. It is a system.

This time, the focus is Third Party Access, or TPA.

Suruhanjaya Tenaga explains that one objective of the Economic Transformation Program was to liberalise Malaysia's gas market. One way to achieve this was through TPA, where third parties may access gas facilities they do not own or operate. The Gas Supply Act 1993 was amended in 2016 and came into effect in 2017 to provide the legal framework for TPA.

This was an important shift. Before market liberalisation, gas infrastructure was largely understood through an integrated system lens. The same ecosystem planned, supplied, transported and managed gas for national requirements.

TPA changed the language. It introduced access. It introduced multiple entities. It introduced competition. It opened the possibility for qualified parties to utilise regasification terminals, transmission pipelines and distribution pipelines under regulated terms.

Access Is Also an Operational Responsibility

In principle, this is good. Competition can create discipline. Access can attract new supply. Market participation can improve efficiency.

But in gas, access is never just a commercial idea. It is also an operational responsibility. A party may have gas. A shipper may have a contract. A customer may need supply. The system must be able to deliver. And, another important element, at an affordable price for all these services and gas molecules.

That is why TPA must be understood carefully in the post-GFA era. If gas supply to the power sector becomes more market-based, TPA will become one of the critical foundations. But open access without system discipline can create new complexity. A supply disruption to a power plant can become a system security issue.

Openness Cannot Sit Alone

This is why post-GFA design must connect TPA with power-sector reality. Pipeline access cannot sit alone. Power dispatch cannot sit alone. Tariff impact cannot sit alone. They must speak to each other.

The real challenge is not whether Malaysia should have a more open gas market. The real challenge is how to make openness work without losing coordination, and at an affordable price.

A mature market needs rules. But it also needs visibility, data, forecasting, operational discipline and clear responsibility.

TPA is not merely about allowing more parties into the system. It is about making sure more parties can participate without weakening the system.

That is the discipline of open infrastructure which supports the electricity architecture for energy security.

There is one more institution that deserves attention. The Single Buyer.

It may not be visible to the public, but in the electricity ecosystem, its role is central.

The Single Buyer framework is built on principles that matter deeply to the power sector: transparency, fairness and independent oversight. These are not just administrative ideals. They are the foundation of trust in a complex electricity market.

Why the Single Buyer Mattered in the GFA Era

As Malaysia's power sector evolved, electricity planning could no longer be treated as a simple supply-and-demand exercise. Market players had to be treated fairly. Consumers expected electricity to be reliable and affordable.

In the GFA era, gas demand from the power sector was closely linked to electricity planning. It depended on demand forecast, plant availability, generation scheduling and dispatch expectation.

PETRONAS could plan gas supply. PGU could transport gas. PGCC could monitor the gas system. GSO could manage real-time grid operation. But the Single Buyer carried the wider planning view of the power system. That made its role important in aligning generation requirement with fuel requirement.

A More Strategic Role in the Post-GFA Era

Now, in the post-GFA era, this role may become even more strategic. Malaysia is entering a more complex energy landscape: greater LNG exposure, more market players, more third-party access, more renewable energy. At the same time, there is a need to balance affordability and flexibility.

The question is no longer only who sells gas to the power sector. The bigger question is: where will all these arrangements be consolidated?

Someone must connect gas procurement, power dispatch, infrastructure access, plant availability, fuel cost, tariff impact and supply security. The Single Buyer can be one of the natural places where this system view is organised.

But the next era cannot depend only on manual coordination and periodic submissions. It needs better tools: rolling demand forecasts, dispatch-linked gas requirements, fuel cost simulation, infrastructure constraint visibility, scenario planning, and more.

AI and agentic systems can support this. Not to replace human judgment, but to strengthen it.

Building a Smarter Framework

This is the real opportunity of the post-GFA era. Not merely to replace an old framework, but to build a smarter one — a framework where commercial design, operational reality and public interest can speak to each other.

The GFA helped align gas supply with the power-sector structure of its time. The post-GFA mechanism must now align a more complex market with the same national expectation.

The Single Buyer matters, not as a back-office function, but as one of the quiet institutions holding the system together.

Energy security is not built by fuel alone. It is built by structure, governance, coordination and the discipline to see the whole system.

There is another important part of the story: the electricity dispatch room.

Many of us knew it as the National Load Dispatch Centre (NLDC). Today, its function is carried out by the Grid System Operator (GSO). If PGCC watches the gas system, GSO watches the power system.

Why PGCC and NLDC Stayed in Close Communication

When I started my career as a Gas Control Engineer at PETRONAS Gas Control Centre (PGCC) in Segamat, PGCC and NLDC were always in close communication. That relationship mattered.

Gas and electricity do not operate in isolation. When electricity demand rises, power plants generate more electricity. When gas-fired plants generate, they need more gas. When gas demand changes, the transmission system responds. And when gas supply faces constraints, the power system must know.

This quiet coordination keeps the nation stable.

I still remember visiting NLDC more than 20 years ago. I was humbled by the technology they already had. The monitoring systems, operational discipline and speed of decision-making gave me a deeper appreciation of what it takes to keep the grid stable. Even their nationwide lightning-tracking system fascinated me. I can only imagine how much more advanced it is today.

The Light Comes On

The public sees only one thing: the light comes on.

Behind that simple act are people monitoring demand, generation, gas pressure, pipeline flow, plant availability, system frequency, fuel readiness and network constraints.

There were times when the system came under stress. In those moments, both control rooms understood the priority. Commercial considerations were set aside. System security came first. The country came first.

There was an unspoken gentleman's understanding: solve the system problem first, settle the commercial details later. That trust cannot be fully written into a contract. It is built through years of professionalism, coordination and mutual respect.

GSO manages the grid safely, reliably and economically through real-time dispatch and coordination with industry participants. This is where gas-to-power becomes very real. That is why communication between PGCC and GSO is so critical.

Respecting Control Room Reality

During the GFA era, the framework helped align gas supply with power-sector planning and dispatch. In the post-GFA era, coordination becomes even more important. Malaysia is moving into a more complex energy landscape. Contracts alone are no longer enough. The real test is whether the system performs under real operating conditions.

Post-GFA design must therefore respect control room reality. System reliability is protected there every hour, every minute and, in GSO's case, even down to milliseconds.

Energy security is not only about fuel. It is about coordination.

The public has one simple expectation: when they switch on the light, it comes on. Behind that expectation, an entire system must work together.

This time, I want to talk about something less visible, but just as important: the pipeline.

I started my career in 1998 as a Gas Control Engineer at PETRONAS Gas Control Centre, or PGCC, in Segamat, Johor.

On paper, it is a gas transmission network. But to those who have worked close to it, Peninsular Gas Utilisation, or PGU, is more than steel pipes on a map. It is the backbone that connects gas processing, power plants, petrochemical plants and industries.

A Backbone That Grew With the Country

The history of PGU is closely tied to Malaysia's economic development. Natural gas from offshore fields had to be processed, transported and delivered to where the country needed energy. Power plants needed fuel. Industries needed reliable supply. Petrochemical facilities needed feedstock. The economy needed energy security.

So the pipeline system grew with the country. From the east coast, the gas network expanded across the peninsula. It connected production and processing centres with demand centres.

At PGCC, one learns very quickly that gas transportation is not passive. Gas does not simply "flow" because a contract says so. It has to be monitored, balanced, scheduled, controlled and protected.

Gas pressure matters. Demand matters. Compressor availability matters. Pipeline constraints matter. Maintenance matters. Power plant dispatch matters.

Why Deliverability Belongs in the Post-GFA Discussion

This is why, when we talk about GFA or post-GFA, we cannot talk only about gas supply contracts. We must also talk about deliverability. That is where PGU becomes central to the post-GFA discussion.

In the post-GFA era, Malaysia is looking at a more open and competitive gas market, including Third Party Access. TPA allows qualified shippers to access gas infrastructure under a regulated framework. In principle, it can support competition, market efficiency and new supply sources.

But access must not be seen only as a commercial right. It is also an operational responsibility. A shipper may have gas. A generator may need fuel. A contract may be signed. But the pipeline system must still be able to deliver.

Infrastructure Makes It Real

The lesson I carried from PGCC is simple. Energy security is not built only in a meeting room or at a negotiation table. It is also built in the control room, in the compressor station, along the right-of-way, at the metering station — inside the daily discipline of keeping gas moving safely and reliably.

The public may not see PGU. They may not see the control screens in Segamat. But they feel the outcome. When the light comes on. When the factory runs. When the hospital operates. When the country moves.

That is why post-GFA is not only about who sells gas. It is about how the whole gas-to-power chain continues to work.

Contracts matter. Markets matter. But infrastructure makes them real.

Hold that thought. The answer will be at the end of this story.

Behind Every Tender, a Bigger Story

Last year, The Edge reported an extension of bids for new gas-fired power plants. At first glance, it was just another tender update. But behind it lies a much bigger story.

For decades, Malaysia's gas-to-power sector was supported by the Gas Framework Agreement, providing an integrated approach to gas supply, pricing, dispatch and system planning.

Today, as we move into the post-GFA era, the challenge is no longer simply who can build the most efficient power plant. The real challenge is who can deliver reliable electricity in a world where fuel is increasingly commercial, exposed to global LNG markets and subject to greater uncertainty.

A Fuel Strategy, Not Just an Engineering Project

A power plant is no longer just an engineering project. It is a fuel strategy. It is infrastructure readiness. It is commercial resilience. It is disciplined risk allocation across the entire gas-to-power value chain.

Gas procurement, pipeline access, dispatch decisions and electricity tariffs are deeply interconnected. A weakness in one part will eventually surface somewhere else, whether in project economics, consumer tariffs or system reliability.

That is why future projects should be evaluated not only by megawatts or bid price, but by the resilience of the entire ecosystem.

Because the public never sees the gas contract. They never see the LNG cargo. They never see the dispatch instruction. They only know one thing. When they switch on the light, it must come on.

So, Back to the Opening Question

If I remember the story correctly, the gas generator started first, initially operating on diesel until it stabilised. Then the gas processing plant started, DPCU1, and produced the sales gas feeding the power plant.

That marked the beginning of Malaysia's modern gas-to-power ecosystem, an ecosystem that continues to power the nation today.

And one last question — who cheated by scrolling straight to the end for the answer?

This next discussion naturally follows that conversation.

The question is no longer just who should supply gas to the power sector? It is how should the entire gas-to-power system be designed?

The recent consultation by Suruhanjaya Tenaga rightly broadens the discussion to market arrangements, pricing, demand variability, security of supply and market governance. These are not separate issues. They are components of one integrated system.

Every Stakeholder Sees the System Differently

Having spent many years across gas operations, production planning, gas marketing, contract negotiation, trading, infrastructure and business strategy, and now technology and digital commercialisation, one lesson stands out: gas-to-power is never just about contracts. It is about system design.

Every stakeholder sees the system differently. Operators focus on reliability, pressure and flow. Commercial teams manage price, volume and contractual risk. Planners forecast future demand and capacity. Regulators safeguard fairness and security of supply. Consumers simply expect electricity that is reliable and affordable.

A successful post-GFA framework must reconcile all these perspectives.

Six Design Principles

To me, six design principles deserve attention.

1. Align gas procurement with electricity dispatch. Risk should reside with the party best able to manage it.
2. Strengthen LNG planning discipline. Greater LNG dependence requires better forecasting, structured procurement and transparent risk allocation.
3. Treat infrastructure as deliverability, not paper capacity. Physical capability matters more than theoretical capacity.
4. Build a credible Supply of Last Resort mechanism. Clear governance is essential when supply disruptions occur.
5. Balance competition with coordination. Commercial efficiency should never weaken system reliability.
6. Make technology part of the operating model. AI can strengthen forecasting, optimisation and early warning, but only when supported by sound governance and clear accountability.

A Framework Shaped by System Behavior

Ultimately, the post-GFA framework should not be shaped by organisational preferences or contractual convenience. It should reflect how the gas-to-power ecosystem actually behaves.

The original GFA addressed the challenges of its era. The new system should be designed through thoughtful system design, commercial discipline, operational realism and regulatory clarity.

That, perhaps, is the real opportunity of the post-GFA era.

Gas supply to the power sector may sound straightforward. Gas is supplied. Power plants generate electricity. Consumers receive power. But in reality, it is a highly connected system.

Malaysia's gas supply to the power sector began as part of a national development agenda. Gas supported electricity reliability, industrial growth and affordable power.

Layers That Created Complexity

As the country grew, the power sector became more complex. Electricity demand increased. Independent Power Producers entered the system. Power purchase arrangements became more sophisticated. Gas supply arrangements also had to evolve.

Over time, many layers came together: commercial contracts, government policy, regulated pricing, generation planning, system dispatch, fuel cost recovery and consumer affordability. Each layer had its purpose. But together, they created complexity.

The main challenge was this: gas supply and electricity dispatch do not always move neatly together.

A gas supplier must plan supply. A power plant must be ready to generate. But the electricity system decides which plant runs, when it runs, and how much it generates. So actual gas consumption depends not only on contract, but also on demand, plant availability, dispatch decisions, fuel cost and system conditions.

The Loose Ends the GFA Addressed

This is where the loose ends appeared. How do we plan gas volume when power demand changes? How do we manage supply commitments when dispatch is centrally decided? How do we price gas fairly when electricity must remain affordable, but supply cost is also changing?

These were not small technical questions. They were structural questions.

This was the background that made the GFA important. The GFA was not just another agreement. It was a framework to bring order to a system that had become complex over time. It recognised that gas-to-power is not a set of isolated contracts. It is one connected system.

A dispatch decision affects gas demand. A supply constraint affects generation reliability. A pricing decision affects commercial sustainability and consumer affordability.

What the Next Era Requires

Now Malaysia is entering another phase. The post-GFA mechanism must deal with greater LNG dependence, more market participants, infrastructure constraints, demand growth and the need to keep electricity affordable.

The question is not simply whether the old model should continue. The better question is: what kind of framework does the next era require?

Energy security is not secured by fuel alone. It is secured by structure, coordination and discipline.

Reference: Suruhanjaya Tenaga Consultation Paper — "Gas Supply to the Power Sector Post Gas Framework Agreement (GFA): Consultation on Future Market Arrangements for Uncontracted Gas Volumes in Peninsular Malaysia."

It is a technical subject. It can sound distant. It belongs, most of the time, in meeting rooms, contracts, regulatory papers and control centres.

But this one feels personal.

Not because I am still directly involved in the system. I am not. It feels personal because there was a time when I saw up close how much work sits behind something most of us take for granted. The simple act of switching on the light.

An Expectation That Is Fair

Most people do not think about gas supply when the light comes on. We do not think about power plants, fuel planning, dispatch, LNG, pipelines, pricing mechanisms, system reliability or regulatory frameworks. We just expect electricity to be there. And that expectation is fair.

A modern country cannot function if electricity is uncertain. Homes need it. Hospitals need it. Schools need it. Factories need it. Offices need it. Data centres need it. Even the smallest routines of family life depend on it.

That is why the Gas Framework Agreement, or GFA, mattered. At its simplest, the GFA was a framework to help manage the relationship between gas supply and power generation. It helped bring structure to a system where fuel supply, electricity demand, dispatch decisions, pricing, billing and risk had to be aligned.

It was not just about gas. It was about reliability. It was about ensuring that the power sector had the fuel arrangement it needed to keep the system running.

Not Only an Industry Matter

Now, Malaysia is discussing the post-GFA arrangement. This may sound like an industry matter, but it is not only for the industry. It affects all of us.

Because the next framework will have to deal with a more complex energy reality. Domestic gas supply is changing. LNG is becoming more important. Electricity demand is growing. New industries are putting more pressure on the system. The market structure is also evolving.

So the question is not merely what replaces an old agreement. The real question is: how do we design a system that continues to give Malaysians confidence that electricity will be there when needed?

That is why I am writing about this on LinkedIn. Not to comment from outside the system. But to speak as someone who once had the privilege of seeing how serious, difficult and important this work is.

When It Works, Nobody Talks About It

Good energy systems are often invisible. When they work, nobody talks about them. When they fail, everyone feels it. Remember the Putra Heights gas incident? I wrote about that as well.

The post-GFA discussion matters because it is ultimately about preserving that quiet confidence in daily life. The confidence that when a parent wakes up early to prepare breakfast, the kitchen light comes on. When a doctor walks into a hospital ward, the machines keep running. When a student studies at night, the room is lit.

Energy policy may sound technical. But its success is deeply human. It is felt in the ordinary moments we rarely stop to notice.

That is why this topic still matters to me.

More than ten years ago, I was involved in the negotiation of the Gas Framework Agreement between PETRONAS and TNB. It was one of the most intense negotiations of my professional career.

The GFA was not an ordinary contract. It was created to manage complex legacy issues in Malaysia's gas-to-power sector, where gas supply, power generation, system dispatch, regulated pricing, LNG importation and national interest were all connected.

At that time, PETRONAS carried gas supply obligations, while TNB, through the Single Buyer and Grid System Operator, played the central role in planning, nomination and dispatch. In simple terms, the party supplying the gas was not always the party controlling the actual power dispatch.

That was why the GFA mattered. It became an umbrella framework to bring clarity and discipline to the system. It helped manage nomination, allocated quantities, take-or-pay, shortfall, excess gas, LNG-linked pricing and billing arrangements.

The Landscape Has Changed

Now, the landscape has changed. Domestic gas is declining. LNG dependence is rising. Electricity demand is evolving. Data centres and energy-intensive industries are changing the load profile. The market is also moving towards more competition, licensed shippers and third-party access.

The old mechanism served its time. The next mechanism must serve the future.

In my view, the post-GFA framework must not rush into fragmentation in the name of liberalisation. Gas supply to power is not an ordinary commodity market. It is part of national energy security.

The new framework must answer key questions: Who carries system-wide gas balancing risk? How should LNG volatility be managed? How do we ensure supply security if a shipper fails? How do we align gas procurement with power dispatch?

Where New Tools Can Help

This is where new thinking and new tools matter. And perhaps this is also where new tools can help.

With today's advancement in AI and agentic systems, future gas-to-power arrangements can be designed with far greater intelligence. AI can support demand forecasting, fuel optimisation, infrastructure capacity modelling, real-time risk monitoring, scenario simulation and early-warning mechanisms.

An agentic system could continuously assess electricity demand, generator availability, nominations, send-out capacity, constraints, market prices and contractual exposure, then recommend the most efficient and secure supply response.

That kind of capability was not available to us in the same way ten years ago. These tools can support better decisions, but the principle remains the same.

The contract must serve the system. The system must serve the country. Energy security is not built by chance. It is negotiated, structured, tested and continuously improved.

Reference: Suruhanjaya Tenaga Consultation Paper — "Gas Supply to the Power Sector Post Gas Framework Agreement (GFA): Consultation on Future Market Arrangements for Uncontracted Gas Volumes in Peninsular Malaysia."