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 brian.vaeth@nueranv.com

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Negligence Protest

V&W Global Energy Corporation 8225 Poplar Mill Road Nottingham, Maryland 21236-5581 Plaintiff, vs.

) Case No.: ) ) Collusion, Negligence, Tortious ) Interference ) ) ) ) ) )

THE UNITED STATES, Defendant

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

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

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 Energys 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
2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

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 PLAINTIFFS 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

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

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 panels 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.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

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 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 . 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
4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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
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

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 DOEs funding programs to foster the growth of energy efficient technologies and Plaintiffs 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.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

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

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 thats 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 nations 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 DOEs review costs by the time theyre 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.
6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

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

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)

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: V&W Global Energy Corporation d/b/a Nuera Company 8225 Poplar Mill Road Nottingham, Maryland 21236-5581 (410) 931-4423 brian.vaeth@nueranv.com Brian Charles Vaeth, on behalf of V&W Energy

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: V&W Global Energy Corporation d/b/a Nuera Company 8225 Poplar Mill Road Nottingham, Maryland 21236-5581 (410) 931-4423 brian.vaeth@nueranv.com Brian Charles Vaeth, on behalf of V&W Energy

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: V&W Global Energy Corporation d/b/a Nuera Company 8225 Poplar Mill Road Nottingham, Maryland 21236-5581 (410) 931-4423 brian.vaeth@nueranv.com Brian Charles Vaeth, on behalf of V&W Energy