VW v DOE Learn the Law

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Pro Se:

V&W Global Energy Corporation

d/b/a Nuera Company

8225 Poplar Mill Road

Nottingham, Maryland 21236-5581

(888) 355-7020

[email protected]

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

Negligence Protest V&W Global Energy Corporation



Plaintiff,

vs.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: Collusion, Negligence, Tortious Interference

COMPLAINT

Pro Se, upon personal knowledge of the facts contained in this complaint and the contents of

the documents referred to herein, and upon information and belief as to all matters concerned, hereby

brings this corruption and negligence protest action against Defendant, The United States of America.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This action protests the actions of the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) in the evaluation for

the awarding of funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA. This complaint

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

is being brought upon the notification of another complaint filed, which mirrors the allegations before

the Court in the present matter and is in no small part due to criminal investigations that are underway

against the agency by multiple investigation organizations including the FBI, The GAO, the Senate

Ethics Committee, the U.S. Treasury, the I.R.S., major media organizations, and multiple community

organizations wherein the initial results of those investigations have found that criminal activities did

take place by DOE staff and affiliates. Plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions against

DOE proceeding with all loan programs, or any related programs, without first complying with

applicable statutory and regulatory requirements wherein said compliance is confirmed, in writing, by,

the FBI, The GAO, The Senate Ethics Committee, The U.S. Treasury, and The I.R.S. and said

compliance is conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Further, as DOE

officials and affiliates have been shown by these investigations to have engaged in intentional and

malicious behavior, Plaintiff intends to seek damages in an amount commensurate with the losses

incurred, as a result of the Department of Energy’s unlawful acts.

JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaint pursuant to the Tucker

Act, as amended by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-340, §12 (a),

(b), 110 Stat. 3870 (Jan. 3, 1996), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 149 (b) (1).

THE PARTY OR PARTIES

Plaintiff is a corporation founded under the laws of incorporation for the State of Maryland and

functions as a company that provides alternative energy solutions for residential and commercial

customers. Plaintiffs currently hold intellectual property relating to improving the efficiency of solar

panels and are highly experienced energy system designers. In 2008, Plaintiff brought to the attention of

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

the U.S. Department of Energy, a design for a solar panel that increased generating capacity by keeping

the units cool and controlling the internal temperature. Plaintiff further asserted that these panels would

be manufactured in the United States and would deliver high tech manufacturing jobs to American

workers. When the programs were announced by the Department of Energy, V&W Global Energy

Corporation submitted several applications for either grants and/or loan guarantees under various

programs. Detailed information surrounding intellectual property and associated technology was

included in these applications, as well as the business models associated with operations of this entity.

With misconduct found to be prevalent throughout this process, Plaintiff should be afforded a fair

opportunity for re-consideration, as well as all other plaintiffs in similar complaints before this Court.

BRIEF INTRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF’S TECHNOLOGY

A typical solar module is described, which includes a solar cell panel, a back plate on which

rests the solar cell panel and a junction box attached to the back plate, metallic wires passing through

the back plate for connecting the solar cell panel and the junction box, and a moisture barrier between

the junction box and the solar cell panel to keep the solar cells free of moisture accumulation during

operation. The present design relates generally to photovoltaic power systems but more particularly to

the cooling of the solar panel. This causes an increase in the efficiency rating of the panel, making it

more efficient in the conversion of light into electricity.

THE EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE ON A SOLAR PANEL

The optimal operating temperature for solar panels constructed of individual solar cells is

approximately 75 degrees - 105 degrees F. The present design regulates the panel’s temperature by

using conditioned air and chilled water distributed throughout the solar panel by means of a coil. In

published NASA research, they have tested solar panels and their efficiency at extreme temperatures

and found that most silicon cells (1.1eV) lose about 0.45% of their power per degree increase.

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

However, using gallium arsenide cells (1.4 eV), they recorded losing approximately 0.21% per degree

increase. Other studies have shown that the current output of the cells is fairly stable, yet the voltage is

reduced resulting in loss of energy. As temperatures throughout the United States vary depending on the

region, different solar technologies are implemented. This design can be utilized anywhere but

particularly is optimal if linked together in a series, such as in an array or even a solar farm. What this

all means is, as a solar panel's temperature increases, its output current increases exponentially while

the voltage output is reduced linearly. Since power is equal to voltage times current, this property

means that the warmer the solar panel, the less power it can produce. The power loss due to

temperature is also dependent on the type of solar panel being used. For example, many common

crystalline silicon solar panels can lose power at a rate of 0.50%/°F, while high efficiency solar panels

lose power at a rate closer to 0.35%/°F.

It is an object of the present design to provide a new and more efficient way to produce

electricity from solar by regulating the operating temperature of the panel or panels. A further object of

the present design is to provide a new and improved support structure for a solar panel array. In an

effort to keep a solar panel operating within in its Normal Operating Range at all times, especially on

extremely hot days, Plaintiffs collaborated and designed a panel that utilized a concrete back plate that

the solar cells attached to. Tubing was then installed on the reverse side of the back plate to assist in a

rapid transfer of cooler temperatures on the back plate that distributes the effect evenly across it. In

initial testing that was not part of an official validation or accreditation, 2 scale models were

constructed. One was constructed as a typical solar panel and the other was constructed utilizing the

concrete back plate material.

Testing was performed on a 6 Volt, 250 mA solar cell, the light source utilized was a 150W

Halogen lamp at a distance of ¼”. To measure the voltage and current under load, a power resistor was

used between the (+) positive and (–) negative outputs on the panel. Within 30 minutes, the temperature

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

of the cell reached 167 degrees F. Between 86 degrees F and 107 degrees F there was a small drop in

peak power output 0.746W to 0.730W. After 107 degrees F, there was a consistent drop of

approximately 0.831W or a little more than 1% of peak power per degree rise in temperature. The

output went from a maximum of 0.75W to 0.45W.

Testing was again conducted using a module totaling 32 square feet. At 1000W p/sq m, this is

approximately 2.983 KW of solar radiation hitting the module. Module temperatures were allowed to

reach 150 degrees F and the cooling processes were started. As the power dropped 10 degrees F, the

module regained approximately 8% of its efficiency. Once the temperature of the module was reduced

into the Normal Operating Range, the module produced approximately 300W at peak power

consistently. The best results have been pointed out for a system operating with a temperature of 77

degrees F, while the performance is satisfactory for 113 degrees F.

Despite successful testing of the design, Plaintiffs sought to obtain funding under the ARRA

and was discouraged from continuing with the application process by the Department of Energy. This is

remarkable because it is the intent of the DOE’s funding programs to foster the growth of energy

efficient technologies and Plaintiff’s technology is a means to that end. Plaintiff raised questions

concerning this negative advisement.Plaintiff has received information demonstrating that the

unprecedented number of failures in the DOE program relative to what DOE officials have claimed to

be “the most expensive and extensive due diligence in history” that those investigations found

“favoritism” in published investigation reports. A senate ethics investigation states, in published

reports, that “negligence and mismanagement by DOE officials” was a regular occurrence. Over time,

the volumes of third party investigations, which have validated the charges of questionable acts by DOE

staff, have become numerous.

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

The DOE loan guarantee program was created as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and

leverages federal dollars by allowing the Department of Energy to guarantee the debt of privately

owned clean energy developers and manufacturing companies instead of investing directly into these

companies through grants or tax subsidies. The U.S. government makes a guarantee to the private

lender that if a project developer or manufacturing company is not able to pay back its loan to the

lender, the government will step in and repay the outstanding balance. The loan guarantee is critical to

financing clean energy projects because private investors are either unable to fund projects that require

extensive capitalization or are unwilling to lend money to projects that use innovative technology that

has not been fully proven at commercial scale, as is the case with most banks individually. The

government accounts for this risk by estimating how much it will likely have to pay out for the

guarantee in the future and then putting that much money in a special account to cover losses. These

expected payments are known as the “credit subsidy cost,” which is often stated as a percentage of the

size of the loan that’s guaranteed. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or ARRA, made a

commitment to deploying U.S. commercial clean energy technology by originally appropriating $6

billion to cover the credit subsidy cost for loan guarantees for renewable energy, advanced bio-fuels,

and upgrades to our nation’s transmission system. This did not mean that the program only could

guarantee $6 billion in loans. It instead offered the program the ability to guarantee loans for anywhere

from $40 billion to $120 billion depending on the types of projects in the portfolio. An average project

has a credit subsidy cost in the range of 5 percent to 15 percent of the total value of the loan guarantee.

Companies like V&W Global Energy Corporation invested an average of $1 million to $2

million on application fees, environmental compliance, legal advice, project finance expertise, and,

most importantly, reimbursing the DOE’s review costs by the time they’re in the due diligence phase.

Private investors also have invested billions of dollars in these projects in addition to expenses related

to the loan guarantee program under the assumption that they would have a fair chance at receiving a

guarantee.

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

This complaint alleges that the process has not been fair, as investigations have shown that

companies such as Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, Beacon Power, and a host of other companies gave

political contributions to politicians and received taxpayer loans and grants in return. Plaintiff seeks to

receive a fair re-review, in a transparent manner, for inclusion in these programs. Investigations have

shown that DOE officials intentionally stalled numerous applicant reviews in order to force them out of

business and protect favored players. Additional evidence has now been provided by parties in separate

actions before this Court that the plaintiffs were interfered with because public money was used to give

competitors an unfair advantage, that rules for public money were changed by the administrators

associated with competitors of the public money in a manner which disadvantaged the plaintiffs while

assisting the plaintiffs competitors, evidence that applications may have won funding in a fair

evaluation but reviewers were ordered to modify results in order to disfavor plaintiffs while favoring

competitors, that plaintiffs provided their tax money to an agency which then used their tax money for

illegal purposes, that plaintiffs are part of a group of applicants who, combined, experienced the same

kind of organized disadvantages, and that certain applicants were hand-walked through the process

while Plaintiff and other applicants were intentionally stone-walled. The evidence also demonstrates

that the best practices and generally accepted standards of the last 100 years of commercial bank loans

were so extremely deviated from, purposefully delayed and layered into intentionally burdensome terms

so as to be so far outside of commonly accepted practice that an intent-to-interfere is obvious and that

additional unethical and potentially illegal acts which DOE staff and associates may have engaged in,

unfairly disfavored applicants ability to equitably participate in the process.

COUNT I

(VIOLATION OF ‘THE COMPETITION IN CONTRACTING ACT’)

COUNT II

(AGENCY ACTION IN SELECTION OF APPLICANT IS ARBITRARY, FAVORED-PARTY

BASED, CAPRICIOUS, AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AND CONTRARY TO LAW)

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

COUNT III

(AGENCY STAFF AND OUTSIDE PERSONALL ILLEGALY ENGAGED IN FAVORING

APPLICANTS IN EXCHANGE FOR POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL BENEFITS TO THE

DETRIMENT OF AMERICAN BUSINESS)

COUNT IV

(AGENCY STAFF AND OUTSIDE PERSONLL ILLEGALY VIOLATED SHERMAN ACT

AND FTC REGULATIONS)

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this court enter judgment on their behalf on this for

injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting DOE from proceeding with all loan programs, or any

related programs, without first complying with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements

wherein said compliance is confirmed, in writing, by, the FBI, The GAO, The Senate Ethics

Committee, The U.S. Treasury, and The I.R.S. and said compliance is conducted in accordance with all

applicable laws and regulations. Further, as DOE officials and affiliates have been shown, by these

investigations, to have engaged in intentional and malicious attempts to damage our business, and the

business of others, in retaliation for reporting these crimes, and in intentional interference on behalf of

competing ventures, damages in an amount commensurate with the actions by these parties is sought. In

addition, Plaintiff request that this Court afford Plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court may

deem just and proper.

Dated this 24th of November, 2012 ____________________________________________ Pro Se:


d/b/a Nuera Company



(410) 931-4423

[email protected] Brian Charles Vaeth, on behalf of V&W Energy

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

AFFIDAVIT

Plaintiff solemnly affirms, under the penalties of perjury, the contents of the foregoing is true

and correct, from the best of knowledge and belief, this 24th day of November, 2012.

____________________________________________ Pro Se:


d/b/a Nuera Company



(410) 931-4423


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Plaintiff hereby solemnly affirms, under the penalties of perjury that the contents of the

foregoing has been mailed to counsel for Defendants, Attorney General for the United States, Eric

Holder on this 24th day of November, 2009.

____________________________________________ Pro Se:


d/b/a Nuera Company



(410) 931-4423


VW v DOE Learn the Law

Documents

Transcript of VW v DOE Learn the Law