FESAC Long Range
Planning Subcommittee
Troy Carter
UCLAThank you to CPP Co-Chairs, PC Members, andthe entire Community
Dr. Lauren Garrison
Dr. Nathan Ferraro
Prof. Scott Baalrud

Prof. John Sarff
Dr. Nathan Howard

Prof. Carolyn Kuranz

Prof. Earl Scime

Dr. Wayne Solomon

DPP CPP was a tremendous success; community came together andmade significant progress toward consensus prioritization/strategic plan•

For a first-time effort of this kind, CPP Leadership and Community did
an excellent job with the process, sets a high bar for future processes
like this inside our community and in other science communities• Co-Chairs should be sure transmit lessons learned and best practices
to APS DPPReminder of why we are here
• This is the first time in a very long time that such a strategic planning process has

been undertaken for the fusion research community and the first time ever that thewhole portfolio has been considered, including broader plasma science• Last “Snowmass” meeting in 2002, much more focused activity (pick between
ITER, FIRE, Ignitor)• Last SP activity was the 2014 FESAC Subcommittee process. This was focused onfusion research much more constrained, limited opportunities for community
input• Before this process, we had no consensus plan, makes it extremely difficult forcommunity and congress to respond to hardship and opportunity• Outside perspective (e.g. Congress): our community is fractured and in-fighting.
Want to see that we can work together to produce a plan

Reminder of why we are here• This is the first time in a very long time that such a strategic planning process has

been undertaken for the fusion research community and the first time ever that thewhole portfolio has been considered, including broader plasma science• Last “Snowmass” meeting in 2002, much more focused activity (pick between
ITER, FIRE, Ignitor)• Last SP activity was the 2014 FESAC Subcommittee process. This was focused on
fusion research much more constrained, limited opportunities for community
input• Before this process, we had no consensus plan, makes it extremely difficult forcommunity and congress to respond to hardship and opportunity• Outside perspective (e.g. Congress): our community is fractured and in-fighting.
Want to see that we can work together to produce a plan

Successful CPP process has demonstrated that our community can cometogether to speak with one voice!

High energy physics was in the same boat in 2014. The success of their P5(“Particle Physics Projects Prioritization Panel”) saved the day(and their process was copied from Nuclear Physics who has done it for ages)
High energy physics had budget constrained scenarios●High energy physics advisory panel (HEPAP) scenarios qualitatively similar to FESAC○

Scenario A was the lowest constrained budget scenario (~2%)○Scenario B was a slightly higher constrained budget (~3%)○Scenario C was unconstrained, but prioritized list of specific activities
1.05

HEP Funding($ in Billions)

1.00
0.95
0.90

P5 Scenario A

0.85
0.80

P5 Scenario B

0.75
0.70
0.65
FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020

W.M. Solomon / CPP MFE-FM&T opening / July 22, 20198

Consensus has paid off in high energy physics (P5)●FY 2019 Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Report:○“The Committee recommends $1,010,000,000 for High Energy Physics. The Committee strongly
supports the Department’s efforts to advance the recommendations of the Particle Physics
Project Prioritization Panel Report [P5], which established clear priorities for the domestic particle
physics program…”
1.05

HEP Funding($ in Billions)

1.00
0.95
0.90

P5 Scenario A

0.85

P5 Scenario B

0.80

HEPAppropriation

0.75
0.70
0.65
FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020

W.M. Solomon / CPP MFE-FM&T opening / July 22, 20199FESAC Charge: 2 Phase process to develop a consensus
plan for the entire FES portfolio• DOE Leadership (& Congress) want the Fusion Energy & Plasma Science
research community to develop a strategic plan for DOE FES based onconsensus prioritization• Charge covers all of the FES portfolio: “…should identify and prioritize theresearch required to advance both the scientific foundation needed todevelop a fusion energy source, as well as the broader FES mission tosteward plasma science.”• Two part process, modeled after the P5 (Particle Physics Projects

Prioritization Panel): Community led (APS DPP) Phase 1 (the DPPCommunity Planning Process or CPP) and Phase 2 led by FESAC to turn thePhase 1 output into official advice to DOE

We’ve set the bar higher than P5•

Similar two-stage approach; Phase 1 community led, Phase 2 led by P5/
HEPAP• However, our Phase 1 was more extensive than theirs: they had a

Snowmass activity in Phase 1 (and some pre-meetings), but Phase 2(P5) ran several community workshops like our Madison, College Park,
Knoxville, Menlo Park•

Our CPP process led a consensus, community vetted/
reviewed process through the end of several communityworkshops, much further than in the HEP community.

•The next P5 process (starting now) acknowledges the need for morepeer review in the community/APS-led phaseWe’re now starting Phase 2•• FESAC Long Range Planning Subcommittee will use this input toThe CPP report will represent official community input to Phase 2
answer the FESAC charge on long range planning for DOE FES•The subcommittee will deliver its report to FESAC, who has ultimate
authority for approving and transmitting it as official advice to DOE

FESAC Charge Language• Identify specific research areas, in which the U.S. should establish or enhance global leadership• Maintain a healthy and flexible program, which incorporates the roles and contributions ofuniversities, national laboratories, and industry, to deliver science results through next decade• Maintain, upgrade, and/or pivot current small-, mid-, and large-scale facilities, including DIII-D andNSTX-U, and also initiate new experiments/facilities/projects• Identify international collaborations and partnerships giving U.S. scientists access to devices withunique capabilities● Provide support for private-public partnership ventures• Position U.S. to obtain maximum benefits in ITER burning plasma science era• Considering budgetary constraints, technical readiness and feasibility for any activity to proceed.
Using FY 2019 enacted budgets, assume:• Constant level of effort(defined as the published OMB inflators for FY 2022-2031)• Modest growth (use 2% above the published OMB inflators)• Unconstrained budgetFESAC Long Range Planning Subcommittee

Prof. Riccardo Betti
Dr. Tyler Ellis
Prof. John Cary
Prof. Scott Baalrud
Prof. Troy Carter

Dr. Ariana Gleason
Prof. John Foster
Dr. Cameron Geddes

Dr. Rajesh Maingi
Dr. Chris Holland
Dr. Chuck Kessel Dr. Ane Lasa
Dr. Paul Humrickhouse

Prof. Uri Shumlak

Dr. Lance Snead Dr. Wayne Solomon

Dr. Tammy Ma

Prof. Oliver Schmitz
Prof. David Schaffner

Dr. Erik Trask

Prof. Anne White
Dr. Francois Waelbroeck

Dr. Don Rej (ex officio)

FESAC Long Range Planning Subcommittee

Prof. Riccardo Betti
Dr. Tyler Ellis
Prof. John Cary
Prof. Scott Baalrud
Prof. Troy Carter

Dr. Ariana Gleason
Prof. John Foster
Dr. Cameron Geddes

Dr. Rajesh Maingi
Dr. Chris Holland
Dr. Chuck Kessel Dr. Ane LasaDr. Paul Humrickhouse

Prof. Uri Shumlak

Dr. Lance Snead Dr. Wayne Solomon

CPP Co-Chairs & PC members

Dr. Tammy Ma

Prof. Oliver Schmitz
Prof. David Schaffner

Dr. Erik Trask

Prof. Anne White
Dr. Francois Waelbroeck

Dr. Don Rej (ex officio)

FESAC Long Range Planning Subcommittee

Prof. Riccardo Betti
Dr. Tyler Ellis
Prof. John Cary
Prof. Scott Baalrud
Prof. Troy Carter

Dr. Ariana Gleason
Prof. John Foster
Dr. Cameron Geddes

Dr. Rajesh Maingi
Dr. Chris Holland
Dr. Chuck Kessel Dr. Ane Lasa
Dr. Paul Humrickhouse

Prof. Uri Shumlak

Dr. Lance Snead Dr. Wayne Solomon

High Energy Density Physics

Dr. Tammy Ma

Prof. Oliver Schmitz
Prof. David Schaffner

Dr. Erik Trask

Prof. Anne White
Dr. Francois Waelbroeck

Dr. Don Rej (ex officio)

FESAC Long Range Planning Subcommittee

Prof. Riccardo Betti
Dr. Tyler Ellis
Prof. John Cary
Prof. Scott Baalrud
Prof. Troy Carter

Dr. Ariana Gleason
Prof. John Foster
Dr. Cameron Geddes

Dr. Rajesh Maingi
Dr. Chris Holland
Dr. Chuck Kessel Dr. Ane Lasa
Dr. Paul Humrickhouse

Prof. Uri Shumlak

Dr. Lance Snead Dr. Wayne Solomon

General Plasma Science

Dr. Tammy Ma

Prof. Oliver SchmitzProf. David Schaffner

Dr. Erik Trask

Prof. Anne White
Dr. Francois Waelbroeck

Dr. Don Rej (ex officio)

FESAC Long Range Planning Subcommittee

Prof. Riccardo Betti
Dr. Tyler Ellis
Prof. John Cary
Prof. Scott Baalrud
Prof. Troy Carter

Dr. Ariana Gleason
Prof. John Foster
Dr. Cameron Geddes

Dr. Rajesh Maingi
Dr. Chris Holland
Dr. Chuck Kessel Dr. Ane Lasa
Dr. Paul Humrickhouse

Prof. Uri Shumlak

Dr. Lance Snead Dr. Wayne Solomon

Magnetic Fusion Energy

Dr. Tammy Ma

Prof. Oliver Schmitz
Prof. David Schaffner

Dr. Erik Trask

Prof. Anne White
Dr. Francois Waelbroeck

Dr. Don Rej (ex officio)

FESAC Long Range Planning Subcommittee

Prof. Riccardo Betti
Dr. Tyler Ellis
Prof. John Cary
Prof. Scott Baalrud
Prof. Troy Carter

Dr. Ariana Gleason
Prof. John Foster
Dr. Cameron Geddes

Dr. Rajesh Maingi
Dr. Chris Holland
Dr. Chuck Kessel Dr. Ane Lasa
Dr. Paul Humrickhouse

Prof. Uri Shumlak

Dr. Lance Snead Dr. Wayne Solomon

Fusion Materials and Technology

Dr. Tammy Ma

Prof. Oliver Schmitz
Prof. David Schaffner

Dr. Erik Trask

Prof. Anne White
Dr. Francois Waelbroeck

Dr. Don Rej (ex officio)

FESAC Long Range Planning Subcommittee

Prof. Riccardo Betti
Dr. Tyler Ellis
Prof. John Cary
Prof. Scott Baalrud
Prof. Troy Carter

Dr. Ariana Gleason
Prof. John Foster
Dr. Cameron Geddes

Dr. Rajesh Maingi
Dr. Chris Holland
Dr. Chuck Kessel Dr. Ane Lasa
Dr. Paul Humrickhouse

Prof. Uri Shumlak

Dr. Lance Snead Dr. Wayne Solomon

Dr. Tammy Ma

Prof. Oliver Schmitz
Prof. David Schaffner

Dr. Erik Trask

Industry/Privately Funded Fusion

Prof. Anne White
Dr. Francois Waelbroeck

Dr. Don Rej (ex officio)

FESAC Long Range Planning Subcommittee

Prof. Riccardo Betti
Dr. Tyler Ellis
Prof. John Cary
Prof. Scott Baalrud
Prof. Troy Carter

Dr. Ariana Gleason
Prof. John Foster
Dr. Cameron Geddes

Dr. Rajesh Maingi
Dr. Chris Holland
Dr. Chuck Kessel Dr. Ane Lasa
Dr. Paul Humrickhouse

Prof. Uri Shumlak

Dr. Lance Snead Dr. Wayne Solomon

Dr. Tammy Ma

Prof. Oliver Schmitz
Prof. David Schaffner

Dr. Erik Trask

Discovery Plasma Science LeadersProf. Anne White
Dr. Francois Waelbroeck

Dr. Don Rej (ex officio)

FESAC Long Range Planning Subcommittee

Prof. Riccardo Betti
Dr. Tyler Ellis
Prof. John Cary
Prof. Scott Baalrud
Prof. Troy Carter

Dr. Ariana GleasonProf. John Foster
Dr. Cameron Geddes

Dr. Rajesh Maingi
Dr. Chris Holland
Dr. Chuck Kessel Dr. Ane Lasa
Dr. Paul Humrickhouse

Prof. Uri Shumlak

Dr. Lance Snead Dr. Wayne Solomon

Dr. Tammy Ma

Prof. Oliver Schmitz
Prof. David Schaffner

Dr. Erik Trask

Fusion Science and Technology LeadersProf. Anne White
Dr. Francois Waelbroeck

Dr. Don Rej (ex officio)

FESAC Subcommittee on Long-Range Planning
Scientific Discipline
NameInstitution
Discovery Plasma Science Magnetic Fusion Energy

Theory andComputation

Geographic Location
Fusion Materialsand TechnologyHigh Energy
Density Plasmas

NortheastSouthMidwestWestType of Institution GenderUniversityIndustry

NationalLab

MaleBaalrud, Scott

University of Iowa

Betti, Riccardo

University of Rochester

Carter, Troy (Chair)

University of California, Los Angeles

Cary, John

Tech-X Corporation

Ellis, Tyler

Commonwealth Fusion SystemsFoster, John

University of Michigan

Geddes, Cameron

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

X

X

X

Gleason, Arianna

SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory

X

X

X

Holland, Chris

University of California, San Diego

Humrickhouse, Paul

Idaho National Laboratory

X

Kessel, Chuck

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

X

X

Lasa, Ane

University of Tennessee

X

X

Ma, Tammy

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Maingi, Rajesh
Schaffner, David

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Bryn Mawr College

Schmitz, Oliver

University of Wisconsin

X

Shumlak, Uri

University of Washington

X

Snead, Lance

Stony Brook University

Solomon, Wayne

General Atomics

X

X

X

X

Trask, Erik

TAE Technologies, Inc.

X

X

X

X

Waelbroeck, Francois

University of Texas at Austin

White, Anne

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

X

Rej, Donald (ex officio)

Los Alamos National Laboratory

X

X

X
X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X
X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
XXX

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

FemaleX
X

X

Others who are critical to the committee’s work
• Laurie Moret played a key role in enabling the success of the CPP process
as a strategic planning consultant; I’ve asked to have her continue in anadvisory role for this subcommittee• Sam Barish will be our FES Liaison for this process and will participate insubcommittee meetings•We’re very lucky to have two of the CPP Co-Chairs continuing work withthis subcommittee. The five others from the “Magnificent 7” willparticipate in discussions during the Phase 1-Phase 2 transition: NathanFerraro, Lauren Garrison, Nathan Howard, Carolyn Kuranz, John Sarff.

• We will also have access to folks with project &management expertise to help us be realistic about costand schedule

Will use the consensus CPP report as basis for ourreport, will continue to interact with community• Aiming for a concise, compelling, “punchy” report from thissubcommittee, pointing to the CPP report for details•

Will need to continue to invite input; focus of early work will be toidentify needs for information gathering (what do we need beyond theconsensus CPP report)• Anticipate opportunities for entire community to provide input,

additionally will have targeted solicitation for input (e.g. to assist ingathering information on cost and schedule for particular initiatives)•Would like to try to utilize the CPP website infrastructure and existing
expert group structure in this process

Committee work so far and plans• Subcommittee has already had four Zoom calls (Feb 21, Feb 28, Mar 5, Mar12) discussing the framework for our process as we awaited the final CPPreport• Subcommittee will have a day-long Zoom call tomorrow. Agenda: Q&Awith CPP Co-Chairs, Presentation on NAS BP report from Prof. Mike Mauel,Presentation on DOE FES Budgets, Work in Breakout groups (DPS & FST)• Planning to invite presentations on other NAS reports (Decadal, BrightestLight), Input from other Agencies, Private-Public, Projects Experts, etc…

• Weekly Zoom meetings will continue; in person meetings as they areallowed (hoping in June?).

• Planning to finish report in time for NAS-style peer review, delivery by Dec

Conflict of interest issues: Subcommittee not subject
to same rules as FESAC• COI can be tricky to navigate for FACA (Federal Advisory Committee Act)
committees (example: 2014 FESAC SP process)• We will follow similar procedure to P5• FESAC LRP Subcommittee is not bound by FACA COI rules• However, we will acknowledge and work around COI as it arises in our ownprocess• Where possible, will make generic (rather than institution-specific/projectspecific) recommendations• Normal COI rules will apply when FESAC approves the final report (P5: brokethe vote up into pieces, allowed discussion but not voting by conflicted members)Thank you!

• Most important output from this process is a compellingplan that has broad consensus from the community. We
need to speak with one voice in advocating for the futureof fusion energy and plasma sciences research•Achieving this is my primary goal in leading this subcommittee, but I
can’t do it without all of you. Please continue to engage in this process
and be prepared for further requests for input to help us complete thisextremely important task