FESAC Long Range Planning
Subcommittee Status
Troy Carter, on behalf of the LRP Subcommittee
FESAC Meeting Aug 24, 2020

Summary: Subcommittee making good progress,
on schedule for draft report in October• Carefully considered all CPP facilities, programs, recommendations; gatheredadditional information as warranted• Extensive effort at putting costs to programs and facilities, using projects experts
to provide cost estimates for major facilities (nearly complete)• Framework for prioritization & constrained scenarios established, based on CPP
report; working toward consensus answer on how to address constrainedscenarios (our focus now and for the last few weeks)• Gathered community input on how to accommodate DPS and FST priorities in asingle strategic plan (focus groups, virtual workshop held Aug 20)• Writing should be the focus of our work soon, aiming for concise report2018 FESAC Charge• Charge covers entire FES portfolio: “…should identify and prioritize
the research required to advance both the scientific foundation needed
to develop a fusion energy source, as well as the broader FES mission tosteward plasma science.”• Two part process, modeled after the P5 (Particle Physics ProjectsPrioritization Panel) and the Nuclear Physics planning process• Letter indicates that APS DPP will lead the first phase (DPPCommunity Planning Process) of community-led activities (done,thank you!)• Phase 2, led by FESAC/FESAC Subcommittee, will take input from
Phase 1 to develop the final long range plan (we are here)

FESAC Charge Language• Identify specific research areas, across the entire portfolio, in which the U.S.
should establish or enhance global leadership• Maintain a healthy and flexible program, which incorporates the roles andcontributions ofuniversities, national laboratories, and industry, to deliver science results throughnext decade• Maintain, upgrade, and/or pivot current small-, mid-, and large-scale facilities,
including DIII-D and NSTX-U, and also initiate new experiments/facilities/projects• Identify international collaborations and partnerships giving U.S. scientists accessto devices with unique 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.

Budget Scenarios• “Your report should provide recommendations on the priorities for anoptimized FES program over the next ten years (FY 2022-2031) under
the following three scenarios with the FY 2019 enacted budget for theFES program as the baseline:”• Constant level of effort (with OMB inflators = yearly growth)
2.2%• Modest growth (2% above OMB inflators = yearly growth)
4.2%• Unconstrained, but prioritizedCPP process resulted in community-led, consensus report• Year-long community-led process.
Whitepapers, webinars, town halls and5 major workshops;
Open process, with community review/vetting of draft reports• Provides guidance for prioritization

Thank you to CPP Chairs,PC Members,
Entire community

within Fusion Science and Technology(FST) (MFE, FM&T & IFE) and within
Discovery Plasma Science (DPS) (GPS,HEDP); also considered fourcross-cutting areas(Theory/Computation, Workforce,Diagnostics, Enabling Technology)

Why is consensus important? Look to P5 success• The P5 planning process for DOE High Energy Physics is held up as an
example for how strategic planning should be done within DOE• Success tied to two things• Conveys compelling scientific opportunities and clear, prioritizedplan to exploit these opportunities• Strong backing for the report from across the entire community• The HEP community was able to “speak with one voice” insupport of the plan. Large number of endorsing signatures to final

report, more importantly voices across the community signaled
support for the plan to DOE, NSF & Congress

Real impact on support for the field

Our goal: a strategic plan that can have the same impact via broad
support from the FES-funded research community

The FES portfolio more intellectually diverse (and more diverse instakeholders) than HEP• Plasma/fusion science and engineering is broad, interdisciplinary with variedapplications (e.g. fusion, semiconductor processing, plasma accelerators, …)(see CPP report and Plasma 2020).

• APS DPP was chosen to lead CPP, however the FES-funded community spansmany additional professional organizations• ANS Fusion Energy Division, IEEE Nuclear & Plasma Sciences Society, APSDAMOP (Gaseous Electronics Conference), APS DPF & DPB (beams/plasmaaccelerators), American Geophysical Union, …

• Strong ties to industry: fusion (Fusion Industry Association), semiconductor
processing, aerospace, medical applications, …

• Makes our task more challenging but also presents an opportunity:
broad endorsement across these communities would send a powerful
messageCPP report is foundation for our work

• CPP report conveys compelling scientific & technology development
opportunities, spanning fundamental science, to plasma-based technology,
to urgent development of fusion power in the US• This is the foundation of the final plan, our report will point to the CPPreport• CPP report expresses consensus prioritization guidance that is the resultof significant work by the community• A top priority of the FESAC LRP Subcommittee is tomaintain and build on that consensus so that the final plan issomething that the entire FES-supported community can getbehind• We’re performing all of our work with this goal in mind

Need to go beyond the CPP to address the charge• The CPP accomplished a great deal and provides a wealth of information,
but we need more to fully address the FESAC charge• CPP did not attempt to address the budget scenarios, did notcost initiatives and programs• Partnering (with other agencies, industry, internationally) important
here, and represents additional information gathering need

• CPP process resulted in consensus guidance for prioritization
within subareas of the portfolio, but not across the entire FES
portfolio• Did not have sufficient time to have conversations between subareas
so that each can understand the other’s priorities and discuss how
the plan can accommodate priorities across the whole portfolio

Subcommittee working incredibly hard, making good progress• Committee has still not met in person, but has logged a huge

number of hours on zoom. Many hours of Zoom (and MicrosoftTeams) a week
• Whole subcommittee call, DPS Subgroup Call, FST subgroup call
• Calls for other subgroups (SOs, PRs, prioritization teams, etc)
• Leadership calls (FST, DPS, all)• Costing activity calls• Calls with external guests• Focus groups, Virtual workshop• Plus lots of offline work!

Budget Scenarios: how we are interpreting the charge• The FESAC charge asks us to “assume that the U.S. contributions to the ITER
project will continue throughout this entire period”• In consultation with FES, we have decided to interpret the charge asasking us to focus on the non-ITER-project portion of the budget• Our starting point will be the 2019 enacted budget; we will remove the portionof the budget associated with the ITER project and the remainder will be
projected forward under the budget scenarios ($432M from 2019 enacted)• Avoids the complication of trying to project the ITER project costs, makes theassumption that Congress will fund this appropriately without impacting the restof the projected FES budget• We will account for ITER operation costs (projections alreadyprovided by FES) and costs for the ITER research program (we areprojecting)From last FESAC meeting: Budget Scenarios

P5P5 generated cost for “blue sky”
will try to provide at 2nd FESAC

Approach to costing of programs/facilities• For large facilities, utilized projects experts + cost estimators toestimate project costs (design, construction, operations) and timeline• Also gathered additional information (costs for existing facilities,foreign facilities)• For FST programs, determined FTE needed to execute program,utilized existing program information & estimates of cost per FTE• Used multiplier to add costs for small experiments, equipment, etc• For DPS programs, used FTE estimates and existing grant program
information, estimated needed program sizes (considered award sizes,proposal success rates, growth associated with new programs)• Small experiments utilizing historical information on facility costs

Difficulties costing pre-conceptual facilities• Only two of the facilities called out in the CPP report are in the Critical
Decision (CD) process: MEC Upgrade (CD-0) and MPEX (CD-1)• All others are in varying states of preconception, makes costing andforming a strategic plan around these facilities very difficult• Projects experts acknowledge costings need to be taken with a grain ofsalt — better definition of scope, mission need and conceptual design &system study are needed to do an accurate cost projection. This iswhat the CD process is meant to enable• The subcommittee acknowledges the uncertainty associatedwith these costings and is attempting to build flexibility in theplan to accommodate

Draft unconstrained budget estimate●●●●

FST Unconstrained scenario fully
embraces the urgency expressed inCPP report, launches design,
construction of new facilities as soon
as possible
DPS Unconstrained scenario staggers
facility construction
Significant fraction of budget infacilities construction (exceeding DOE
SC guidance, <20%)
Clearly have our work cut out for
us in addressing the constrainedscenarios

Approach to prioritization and constrained scenarios• Using all prioritization guidance from the CPP report: values,
criteria, stated priority order of Strategic Objectives, and Appendix
A information for FST• Not seeking to produce a ranked list, instead considering a tieringsystem to provide flexibility in the plan (e.g. tiers might be“Essential”, “Integral”, “Aspirational”)• Where possible, think about uniform percentage reduction ofprograms within Tiers as an approach to hit constrained scenario
budget targets• For Facilities, consider delays, possible reduction in scope, but hard
to not fully fund construction (so percent reductions not a usefultool)Addressing impact of constrained scenarios• Strong sense of urgency conveyed by FST community for FPP
by 2040’s; urgency also expressed for advancing DPS scienceand technology for societal benefit• Subcommittee is looking carefully at whether timeline can bekept (or not majorly delayed) under constrained scenarios;
potentially would need to adopt much more risk on a path toFPP in FST• Looking at ways to leverage investment from federal andprivate partners to get more bang for buck and make progress
quicker across whole portfolio

Partnering to achieve FES goals• Looking carefully at partnering with other federal agencies andprivate industry across the whole portfolio• Within FST, identifying PPP opportunities from FIAinteraction, CPP report statements, and SO/PR assessments
within sub-panel• Report will address cost share opportunities and other PPPmodels (beyond INFUSE and cost share) that might be utilized• Have paid close attention to examples from DOE NE andinternational examples (e.g. I-DTT) (partnering to build majorfacilities)

Last piece of the puzzle: how to integrate DPS
and FST into whole portfolio plan

• Subcommittee work so far largely focused within DPS, FST;
prioritizing and considering constrained scenarios independently(keeping in mind the need to address cross cuts)• Have to decide how to merge the two independent plans. Do wesplit the budget in a fixed way or do we perform prioritization
across the whole portfolio? Need for community input• Gathered input in two ways:• Focus groups (June/July)• Virtual workshop (Aug 20)

Several Focus Group Sessions were run in June & July
● Purpose: gather input on how to deal with program “balance”
between DPS and FST, ask about additional synergies andcross-cuts, gather general feedback on LRP subcommittee process● 90 participants, aggregated by early career, mid-senior career,
graduate students, women, and underrepresented minorities.
● Did not attempt to solicit consensus on questions asked, however,there were several areas were multiple people were in agreement
on a topic.
● Focus groups run by Laurie Moret, with help from Lauren
Garrison (CPP Co-Chair)Focus groups: Highlights● Not much input on potential additional FST-DPS cross-cuts● Some didn’t like the word ‘balance’; balance doesn’t have to mean equal orsame● Very few people felt that they understood other parts of the field wellenough to make informed decisions on budget “split”● Recognition that the committee’s job is difficult; On board with the end
goal being a comprehensive report that was understandable and people
could live with.
● Many desire change, understand that can be hard and that everyone
may not be happy.
● Desire to repeat the process every 5 years.

Focus groups: Highlights, cont.
● Focus group participants interested in seeing:○ Transparency, e.g., what the criteria used were, why decisions were
made, feedback offered○ A clear and compelling vision and mission – that is high level enoughfor everyone to see themselves○ Reliance on the Phase 1 CPP report for project information, rankings,values, PACs, etc.
○ Inclusivity – solicit input from a broad audience○ No surprises — show the community a draft if possible, have goodconnection to the Phase 1 report, update the community along theway○ Sustaining workforce during program transitions importantAug 20 Virtual Workshop• Goals:• Provide opportunity for DPS and FST communities to interact,
understand each others priorities and values• Gather input on how to “merge” the plans (how to go about splitting
the constrained budgets between FST and DPS priorities), working
toward a consensus way forward for the LRP Subcommittee to address
the charge•

Most of the meeting spent in small breakout discussion groups (12 groups,with 2 discussion leaders drawn from the community (thanks!))• LRP Subcommittee, FESAC, DOE participants as observers• Great community participation, 195 participants on Zoom

Breakout discussion topics
First Breakout (mergin mission/vision, values):
1.
2.

Can we come to consensus on a mission and vision, both reflecting the outcome of theCPP, by merging the independent mission and vision statements from FST and DPS?
The CPP report expressed separate “values” for FST and DPS. Are there shared values,common to both communities that can be expressed?

Second breakout (merging DPS & FST into a whole portfolio plan)
1.
2.
3.

Would using the existing split between DPS and FST in FES funding be an approach foranswering the charge that the community can support (live with)?
If not, can we agree on a set of program-wide prioritization criteria to perform
whole-portfolio prioritization (and not adhere to a percentage split)?
How can we be better prepared to consider this question during the next iteration of thisprocess (in ~5 years)?

Workshop Outcomes• Still processing copious notes provided by breakout discussion
leaders (thank you!), but some takeaways:• Strong turnout representing the broad community.
• Participants engaged in constructive, respectful•conversations – directly addressing critical challenges
Individuals expressed a greater understanding of thetrade-offs as scenarios beyond “blue sky” are considered.

Report: what it might look like

• Aiming for a concise, compelling report that clearly conveys
priorities. Don’t think we need to provide detailed budget
information/precise funding allocations to specific initiatives• Take the P5 report as an example. No budget numbers or costs
for particular facilities. But makes a number of recommendations
and expresses clear prioritization and impact of constrained
scenarios

P5 Expression of priorities

Report: what it might look like, cont.

• Aiming for a concise, compelling report that clearly conveys
priorities. Don’t think we need to provide detailed budget
information/precise funding allocations to specific initiatives• Take the P5 report as an example. No budget numbers or costs
for particular facilities. But makes a number of recommendations
and expresses clear prioritization and impact of constrained
scenarios• Developing budget numbers and facilities costs is an
important input for our process. But this information
may not be released as part of the report.

Report: when will it be done?

• Writing will be the main focus of our efforts very soon• On track to meet original plan of having draft report inOctober• P5 had used an NAS-like external review of their report,
will do the same if possible• Ultimate authority with FESAC (will have time to review
and comment/suggest changes to draft)Summary: Subcommittee making good progress,
on schedule for draft report in October• Carefully considered all CPP facilities, programs, recommendations; gatheredadditional information as warranted• Extensive effort at putting costs to programs and facilities, using projects experts
to provide cost estimates for major facilities (nearly complete)• Framework for prioritization & constrained scenarios established, based on CPP
report; working toward consensus answer on how to address constrained
scenarios (our focus now and for the last few weeks)• Gathered community input on how to accommodate DPS and FST priorities in asingle strategic plan (focus groups, virtual workshop held Aug 20)• Writing should be the focus of our work soon, aiming for concise report