If you have "no place to go," come here!

CA Energy Fraud: An Tale of Predatory Government

chicago dyke's picture

I've got a lot to do today, so rapid posting now with return later in commments, go read this tale of what I'm going to start calling "predatory government." Here's a sample:

federal appeals court has revived California's request for at least $1 billion in refunds to electricity customers, saying federal regulators who denied the repayments had ignored tapes in which Enron traders joked about gouging customers during the energy crisis of 2000-2001.

The ruling was issued Friday by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which repeatedly has found that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission abused its authority or violated its own rules in considering the state's claims of multibillion-dollar overcharges during the energy crisis.

The commission eventually imposed limits on the energy charges in mid-2001 but has rejected most of the state's refund requests. Friday's ruling was the third since 2004 in which the appeals court has ordered the commission to reconsider separate refund claims of at least $1 billion.

In Friday's case, the court overturned two of the commission's decisions on refunds that California is seeking for power purchased by a state agency from suppliers in the Pacific Northwest.

In one, the commission said the state was ineligible for refunds because it had taken possession of the electricity in California rather than in the Pacific Northwest. The appeals court found that conclusion to be baseless.

The main point I want to make is that it's really important for us to perceive just how much Rove/Bush/Cheney-ism has infected the federal system. We literally cannot expect the federal government to be counted upon to help us, and indeed as this case shows, often it is actively working to fuck us, rob us, and sometimes even kill us.

In terms of how we craft strategy, I believe keeping this in mind to be essential.

No votes yet


Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

(NOTE: this was posted by someone named "Jay Drai" with some formatting issues, noted below. It was NOT written by Xan but I had to do some editing and rules required a registered name as Author.)

Response to Multiut - Nachshon Draiman rebuttal about his fraud – rev4.
Nachshon Draiman - Multiut Corp. Fraud
You will note that State and Federal Court records in Illinois and elsewhere are replete with lawsuits, judgments and wrongdoing by Nachshon Draiman and his companies. Causing the death of patients in the Nursing homes and a lawsuit by the State of Illinois with civil and criminal conviction People v. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman (1983), 98 Ill.2d 194, 207, 74 Ill.Dec. 516, 456 N.E.2d 18.). Abusing nursing home patients see State of Illinois records.

Multiut Corp and Nachshon Draiman dba Future Associate of Skokie, IL. Are withholding evidence of fraudulent activities in the Energy industry estimated $10 million and inflated Medicaid billing to the government for Nursing Home patients estimated $20 million. Also Bank fraud against their bank by presenting fraudulent and inflated receivable reports in order to get and keep a credit line, Nachshon Draiman was a large stock holder of the bank. Draiman Nachshon • SC 13G • Success Bancshares Inc • On 2/17/98
Filed On 2/17/98 • SEC File 5-53545 • Accession Number 950137-98-586

Just because he was able to cheat the system with political contributions and expired statute of limitations does not make him any less guilty. Everyone eventually pays for his wrongdoings; it is time for Nachshon Draiman and his entities to pay the piper.
Everything stated previously by me against Nachshon Draiman, Multiut, Future Associates and his Nursing Homes can be very easily verified.
State and Federal Court documents confirm the frauds and more.
Where there is smoke - there is fire.

Several courts and administrative bodies have found Nachshon Draiman culpable in providing fraudulent documents and the intentional abuse and negligence of Nursing Homes patients in Illinois – in every case Nachshon tried to blame others for his misdeeds. See People of the State of Illinois vs. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman et al – 456 N.E.2d 18 there has been numerous patient abuse and deaths due to that abuse. In 127 Ill.App.3d 1165, 483 N.E.2d 731, 91 Ill.Dec. 385 Sonnenberg v. Mill View Associates, Nachshon Draiman where millions of dollars had to be paid as damages for abuse and death of a patient, not to mention numerous patients who died falling down an elevator shaft.
Nachshon Draiman former partner from Lydia Healthcare (in Robbins, IL.)Arnold Simensen will testify that Nachshon has been breaking and entering and stealing his personal financial records which is recorded on video tape. Nachshon therefore lost his ownership interest in that home. Numerous Nursing Homes operated by Nachshon Draiman have been closed down by the State due to abuse and deaths of patients – Numerous judgments are entered against Nachshon Draiman’s entities for overcharges $10 million. Not to mention the over 20 litigations that are currently pending. (Such as Dynegy v Nachshon Draiman w 6 contempt of court orders $22 million – Multiut, Israel Discount Bank vs. Nachshon Draiman $45 million, State Financial Bank vs. Nachshon Draiman and others). Inflated gas bill to his own nursing home and his friends and associates in order to increase the expenses and bill Medicaid fraudulently.
Defrauded and took about $8 million dollars plus from his nursing home partners in Burnham Healthcare.
Not to mentioned that he is represented by a Law Firm with attorneys who pleaded guilty to criminal conduct with Jack Abramoff as one of the partners – to say the least and has numerous ethical and criminal transgressions (Greenberg Traurig).

States: “All men are created equal” I state (except those with money, power and influence – who are more equal than others)

NEWSMEAT - NACHSHON DRAIMAN's federal campaign contribution search ...NACHSHON DRAIMAN » IL » 60077 ... Receive an alert every time new records are added to this search for NACHSHON DRAIMAN. Your Email ...
Political Campaign Contributors415777. Paulette Dragul ... Contribution Count/Amount - 1 / $2000 415778. Nachshon Draiman ... Contribution
Count/Amount - 2 / $2000 415779. ...
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446.

Court: United States District Court Northern District of Illinois -
Case Title: Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al
Case Number: 1:02-cv-07446
Judge: Hon. John A. Nordberg
Filed On: 10/16/2002
128 01/10/2005 MINUTE ORDER of 1/10/05 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : As stated on the reverse of this order, plaintiff's motion to compel financial documents [124-1] and for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [124-2] Defendant's request for reconsideration is denied. (See reverse of minute order.) Notices mailed by judge's staff (hp) (Entered: 01/10/2005)
Multiut Nachshon Draiman lawsuits
MADDY MELISSA ADAIR THOMAS, Nachshon Draiman 06/22/2007
Case Number Plaintiff Defendant Date Filed
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446.
Draiman and Multiut breached the Guaranty by failing to pay after demand, when due, the Unpaid Principal. Balance and the Interest.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of a judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgement, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
(Fraudulent Transfer In Law- Multiut)
27. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, as paragraph 27.
28. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a director, officer and/or control ling shareholder of Multiut.
29. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a general partner in Future Associates or otherwise had authority and/or control over the business affairs of Futures Associates or an entity that had authority over the business affairs of Futures Associates.
30. Since at least January 1999, Multiut failed to make timely payment, when due, for some or all of the natural gas delivered by Dynegy.
31. On March 7, 2001, Ginger Wright of Dynegy and Lenore Kamien of Multiut ' agreed that Multiut owed Dynegy approximately $11,000,000, excluding interest.
32. On September 5, 2001, Dynegy representatives Pete Pavluk and Mark Ludwig met with Multiut representatives Lenore Kamien and/or Nachshon Draiman at Multiut's offices to discuss the amount owed by Multiut.
33. At that meeting, Mr. Draiman said that Multiut did not have funds sufficient to pay the debt owed and that Multiut would propose a payment plan by September 17, 2001.
34. In a September 17, 2001 letter, Multiut proposed a payment plan by which it would make monthly payments, from October 2001 through March 2002, in order to pay down the amount owed to Dynegy. The proposed payments ranged from $600,000 in some months to $1,800,000 in other months. According to Mr. Draiman, Multiut was, 'insurefd] [sic] an additional annual profit of $2,000,000' and that, 'in the meantime, [Multiut] was working on bank financing as well as funds from private sources for capital infusion.'
35 . In an October 4, 2001 letter to Multiut, Dynegy responded to Multiut's September 17, 2001 proposal by asking for 'a detailed formal plan by no later than Wednesday, October 10, 2001 that outlines bringing your account balance current by no later that [sic]-January 15, 2002.'
36. In an October 12, 2001 letter, Multiut responded to Dynegy's October 4, 2001 letter by proposing 'weekly payments for October through January.' The weekly payments proposed by Multiut totaled $7,700,000.
37. Multiut did not make all the weekly payments described in its October 12, 2001
38. Multiut's check , dated August 23, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $300,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
39. Multiut's check, dated October 26, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $150,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
40. Multiut's check, dated November 9, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
41. Multiut check no. 1946, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000 and deposited on December 7, 2001, was returned twice due to insufficient funds.
42. On January 8, 2002, Multiut claimed it could not pay the amounts owed to Dynegy because of slow payment by the government in connection with Mr. Draiman's nursing homes.
43. On January 31, 2002, Multiut told Dynegy that it would make a $200,000 payment while it worked to raise cash through a factoring company and while it attempted to arrange a line of credit with Bank Leumi.
54. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfer described in paragraph 53.
55. In the years 1999 through 2003, Multiut transferred cash or other assets to Future Associates, Draiman and/or other entities, including Draiman's nursing home, hotel or other business interests when Multiut was indebted to Dynegy.
56. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfers desciibed in paragraph 55.
57. When Multiut made the transfers described in paragraphs 53 and 55 (the 'Transfers'), Multiut was insolvent and/or became insolvent as a result of the Transfers.
58. The Transfers were fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the Transfers to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT IV (Fraudulent Transfer In Fact- Multiut)
59. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 59.
60. The Transfers were made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud Dynegy, a creditor of Multiut and as-such constituted fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be
used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; punitive damages and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.

Regarding Nachshon Draiman and Future Associates – Multiut Corp.
Ken Ditkowsky
wrote on May 16, 2007 9:52 AM:
' Read your story with interest. In my opinion we apparently have not learned from the Resko transactions. While Government cannot plan and execute a 'one car funeral' it should not delegate its responsibilites 'helter skelter.' The Illinois Court records are replete with information concerning the people involved in the transaction. '

Jerald Dims
wrote on May 16, 2007 8:52 AM:
' See Illinois Court documents federal and state regarding Nachshon Draiman, Future associates, Multiut corp. being involved in fraudulent actions and inflated billing, defrauding partners of $8 million dollars, fraudulent documents to the illinois department of Registration to obtain a Nursing Home License, defrauding the banks in Israel - currently pending a lawsuit and a criminal investigation 02c7446 '
This is just a small sample of the various actions and criminal and fraudulent acts by Nachshon Draiman and his alter ego companies.
Yehuda Draiman 8/15/2007

[EDITORIAL NOTE: Material consisting entirely of question marks removed by Senior Corrente Management on grounds that it contained no data and was improperly entered so as to break page margins.--Xan]

Case Information Summary for Case Number

Division: Chancery Division District: First Municipal
Ad Damnum: $0.00 Calendar: 09

Party Information

Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s)

205 W RANDOLPH#1430


(312) 346-7950

Date of Service Defendant(s) Attorney(s)

Case Activity

Activity Date: 11/20/2001 Participant: GORE JACK
Posted by: Jay Drai | August 28, 2007 at 08:06 PM

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

If you have a comment to make then by all means make it, but stop leaving these great whacking droppings of legal printouts.

We have no idea what this is about, and you don't seem to feel any need to explain it, so take it where somebody might be interested. Which is not here. Shoo. Shush. Go away.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on


What You Need to Know

Using sophisticated financial modeling to make the most-informed decisions when upgrading multi-tenant office buildings

In 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted a review of all of the office buildings that had used its online Energy Star benchmarking system (

A startling statistic came to light: The lowest-scoring buildings used four times as much energy as the highest-scoring ones. Granted, the buildings with the highest scores were extremely energy-efficient. Still, the gulf between them and the lowest-scoring buildings makes one wonder about the magnitude of energy wasted in this country.

The benchmarked buildings included both income-producing and owner-occupied properties.

One might expect income-producing properties to take energy efficiency more seriously than their owner-occupied counterparts because lower energy costs imply higher net operating income (NOI), the mother’s milk of real-estate investors.

However, too many income properties continue to have very inefficient building systems for a variety of reasons: “lowest-first-cost” decision-making, dysfunctional owner/tenant dynamics, and popular myths that lead owners and managers to ignore or reject worthwhile energy upgrades.

If you were to ask a roomful of income-property owners and managers if improved energy efficiency could make their buildings more profitable, competitive, and valuable, most, if not all, probably would say yes. Pose the same question to a roomful of engineers, vendors, and consultants, and most probably also would say yes. However, only those who understood leasing and real estate finance would be able to support their yes with compelling mathematics.

To make the most-informed decisions when selecting energy projects to approve, it is vital to know how a property’s leases might allocate energy savings between the owner and the tenants (see the sidebar “Understanding the Basic Types of Leases”), how much the tenants would be obligated to contribute toward the cost of an expense-reducing capital project, how the owner’s share of savings could boost NOI, and how a higher NOI could support an increase in appraised value. Clearly, replacing myth with math goes a long way toward better decision-making regarding energy throughout the life cycle of a typical income property.

This article offers new time- and cost-effective best practices for analyzing the merits of proposed energy-efficiency upgrades to multi-tenant; income-producing office properties (see the sidebar “Huge Potential in Office Sector”). Keep in mind that, as with most analytical approaches, the “devil is in the details.” The ultimate value of this analysis depends on many factors, such as the reliability of projected costs and savings and the volatility of utility prices. Moreover, unless energy-saving equipment is properly installed, intelligently operated, periodically re-commissioned, and otherwise well maintained, any predicted savings may prove elusive. In multi-tenant buildings, other devilish details, such as disturbances associated with installations, can be important as well. Fortunately, knowing about each of these issues is the first step in addressing them. Each year, countless energy-saving projects are successfully implemented in income properties because the right questions were asked and answered at the right time.


Before you can quantify the value of improved energy efficiency in a leased property, you need to evaluate carefully who will pay for the improvement and who will benefit from it (see the sidebar “Calculating the Owner’s Share of Savings”). Only then can you take the next step: determining how those savings might drive improved profitability, competitiveness, and value.

Take the example of an income producing office building. If the operating expenses are lowered, the owner, the tenant(s), or both will realize the savings, depending on the expense sharing provisions of the leases and certain other factors. The portion of the savings that goes to the owner will increase NOI, which, in turn, could improve the appraised value of the building when it is refinanced or sold.

Meanwhile, the improved comfort and convenience that often accompany energy-efficiency upgrades may help with tenant retention and attraction. The portion of the savings captured by the tenant will lower occupancy cost, which will improve the tenant’s ability to pay rent. The combination of energy savings and the improved look/feel of the space may make the tenant more interested in renewing the lease.

The moral of the story: It does little good for engineers to focus on kilowatts, kilowatt-hours, simple payback period (SPP), and other commonly used metrics to describe and evaluate projects if they forget to consider other vital issues, such as who would pay for the upgrade, who would benefit, and the downstream effects of the projected energy savings.


According to Jim Collins, internationally known management expert, even the best strategies will fail without well conceived mechanisms for executing them. If you are serious about saving as much energy as possible:

• Have you adopted best practices for finding, evaluating, and approving expense-reducing capital projects for your properties?

• Do you apply these best practices on a systematic, portfolio-wide basis so that you know you are focusing your limited time and capital on the most promising upgrade opportunities at all times?

• Are you on the lookout for rebates and other incentives (tax credits) so you can be sure you are not missing “free money” (see the sidebar “The Money Is Out There”) that could help you improve your properties?

• In the case of income-producing properties, does every proposed expense reducing capital project include a financial analysis of who would pay for the improvement, which would get the savings, and how that allocation of costs/savings might influence the owner’s total return?

• If you are an engineer, a vendor, a contractor, or a consultant advising a client on opportunities to improve energy efficiency, do your analyses go beyond SPP and consider the impact of the estimated energy savings on your client’s business?

These are just some of the questions that need to be answered with a yes if you want your winning strategies to have a positive impact on the bottom line. Applying energy-saving strategies to properties and projects becomes more practical if you keep a few key lessons in mind:

Expense-reducing capital projects must be positioned properly to compete for two precious commodities: time and money.

There is only so much “management bandwidth” to select and pursue initiatives. Similarly, there is only so much capital to fund even the best projects. Staff cutbacks and the current economy have only tightened these two constraints.

Whether you work with owner-occupied or income-producing property, can you honestly say that energy-saving projects compete effectively for the owner’s time and money? Might there be ways to raise the perceived importance of energy projects so that they receive the attention they deserve?

Does your organization need to grow its income properties’ NOI and asset value? Could low-risk, high-return expense-reducing capital improvements to your existing portfolio provide “internal growth” that would offset the present lack of opportunities for “external growth” (i.e., building or buying additional properties)?

If you are a vendor or service provider, do you understand your prospect’s business well enough to position your offerings as being more compelling than whatever else may be distracting the decision-makers?

Finding the opportunities that most deserve a share of that finite time and capital requires a systematic, portfolio-wide approach.

This implies that (1) all decision-making criteria are clearly listed and prioritized; (2) the building portfolio is systematically screened for these criteria in the order of least to most expensive to study; (3) the decision-making chain is well-defined, and each stakeholder in that chain understands not only his own goals, objectives, and responsibilities, but those of the stakeholders directly above and below him; (4) all of the costs and benefits are analyzed; and (5) the cost/benefit analysis is communicated in a language that all stakeholders can understand.

When it comes to devising a strategy for pursuing energy savings, have all of the decision-makers agreed on which criteria make projects the most compelling?

If you are working with a large, geographically dispersed building portfolio, has a top-level screening of all buildings been performed so that the top projects worth pursuing can be ranked?

Is there a well-defined decision chain from the person with the authority to approve the project down to the frontline person charged with finding/evaluating the opportunities?

Are the downstream benefits of improved energy efficiency fully understood by the individuals preparing the proposals? Do these individuals know how to quantify the positive impact reduced operating expenses have on NOI and appraised value? What about the positive effect lower operating expenses can have on tenant retention and attraction?

Do they realize that lower operating expenses may allow the owner to set lower expense stops for leases signed after the upgrade is completed?

Do you find your engineers trying to convince senior management to fund energy upgrades with elaborate analyses calibrated in kilowatt-hours, therms, or other decidedly non-financial language?

If you are an income-property owner, wouldn’t it be great if your energy-service company took the time to translate projected energy savings into benefits that you consider when making other capital decisions?

If you get the right answers by asking the wrong questions, you are just lucky.

So many building owners, property managers, and vendors/contractors are guilty of placing too much emphasis on SPP. This mistake is particularly egregious in the case of income properties.

If you own/manage a multi-tenant office building, which do you think is more important to know: the SPP of a project or who would get the savings—the owner or the tenant(s)? Would it surprise you to learn that, depending on the leases in place, a four-year SPP project may be a more profitable investment than a two-year SPP project when viewed from the owner’s perspective (Figure 3)?

How do you feel about your project being judged solely on the merits of its SPP, with financial benefits realized after the SPP ignored?

In the absence of math, decisions often are governed by myths. Do not let fiction fill the vacuum left by a lack of facts. Blindly accepted myths and inappropriately applied “rules of thumb” play a major role in the continued waste of energy in this country. When selecting projects to fund, you need to know the facts. Who pays? Who benefits? You need access to tools that deliver actionable information automatically. If your financial analysis requires an impractical level of time and effort, it will not get done, especially if you need to see multiple scenarios before approving a project. If your people lack the time or skills to perform and present these calculations, you should consider outsourcing the financial analysis to someone who has Automated the number-crunching.

In the case of a multi-tenant building, are the people who approve/reject capital expenses the same people who signed the existing leases? If not, have they at least read the leases lately? How much of the energy cost is paid by the owner? How much of the projected upgrade’s savings would inure to the landlord on a tenant-by-tenant, month-by-month basis? Can the owner assess tenants for capital?

Improvements that reduce operating expenses for tenants?

If you are an engineer recommending an energy-saving capital project for a multi-tenant building, have you detailed the costs/savings of the project on a tenant-by-tenant and common-area basis? Do you know how much of the projected savings will inure to the owner and how much capital cost could be assigned to the tenants according to the terms of the existing leases? Do you have a best practice of including a leasing analysis in every proposal you present to multi-tenant building owners/managers?

See the sidebar “Winning Strategies, Winning Mechanisms” for three sets of strategies and mechanisms you might want to consider adopting.
Compiled by Yehuda Draiman

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

PAY AS YOU SAVE Energy conservation financing program

The program will allow participants to purchase and install energy efficient products
And equipment (or “measures”), with no up-front cost. These measures can include modifications to lighting, heating, cooling, other energy efficient electric, gas and non-electric equipment and systems. Major measures promoted: lighting, weatherization, water saving devices and clock thermostats in both electric and non-electrically heated homes and businesses. We should also accept a variety of measures (provided they pass the Program qualification. This can apply to any conservation method, renewable energy systems (solar, photovoltaic, geothermal, wind), electric, gas and water.
Primary goals should be lighting retrofits, motor retrofit, HVAC efficiency, insulation and attic fans, windows, energy efficient appliances, water conservation equipment and techniques, utilization of gray water, landscaping for energy conservation.
HOW DO WE PROPOSE TO FINANCE THE COSTS: There is no up-front cost to the participants? Instead, the utility pays all initial costs associated with the purchase and installation of approved measures. (We must keep the costs competitive and reasonable)
Then, an Energy Finance Charge (EFC) is calculated and added to the ember’s/customers monthly utility bill until all costs are repaid.
A fund will be set up and the payments will reimburse the fund monthly.
Calculating the Term: Financing charge amounts itemized on the monthly utility bill should be based on two thirds of the estimated savings that will come from the measures installed.
This way, the monthly charge should be designed to be less than the savings realized on each bill once the new measures are installed and implemented.
If customers wish to pay off their Financing charges balances quicker (which in some cases they do), up to one hundred percent (100%) of the savings can be used to form the basis of their monthly Finance charge amount.
Payments Linked to Meter (not customer): The payments are always linked to the service location, not to the customer. So if an Energy Financing Charge (EFC) participant moves or sells, the new owner continues making the payments for the duration of the payment term, unless the previous owner/tenant chooses to pay off the obligation before selling or moving.
Also, the payments include a small percentage risk mitigation adder (5%) to protect the utility from bad debt risks associated with some portion of participants’ failure to pay.
To protect the utilities and their broader membership/customer base against other potential risks, three key requirements are included in the EFC program for those that choose to participate:
• Maintenance: All measures must be maintained in place and in good working order during the entire repayment period – the utility will help arrange for repairs, but any associated costs will be added to the EFC on the utility bill, or will extend the payment term to ensure recovery of these additional charges.
• Disconnection: All payments must be made on time – EFC charges are treated like other charges on the utility bill that are subject to service disconnection for non-payment.
• Disclosure: If the home or business is sold or rented, disclosure of the remaining monthly EFC payment amounts must be made to the potential purchaser or tenant (since they will be taking over the remaining payment obligation), unless the current owner chooses to pay the balance off before the sale or rental.
This proposed program – managed efficiently, will advance and expedite our reduction in the use of energy and resources in an expedited manner and reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.
It will also promote an economic boom in the geographical areas where such program is implemented.
Compiled by: Yehuda Draiman, Energy analyst – 1/1/2008

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Thank you for commenting at Corrente. Your material is interesting and addresses subjects which are entirely on topic here. The points about how to pay for energy-efficiency retrofits of existing buildings and how to addess the subject in terms financial people rather than engineers can understand is an important addition to the conversation.

However, tacking these on as comments to a months-old thread, particularly one which, while on the subject of "energy" is initially about a different matter entirely, is not particularly efficient. You might want to consider either finding a site more attuned to your specific interests, or else registering and posting these as separate posts in their own right.