About Us
What is the FESAC LRP sub-committee working on?
We are listening to the community and are aware that you want to know more about the work we are doing in response to the charge to FESAC.
In this page you will find the information that we are allowed to share with the public; and some general notes about the things that we cannot.
Limitations: As a subcommittee of FESAC, our ability to communicate is constrained by DOE rules
As we are a subcommittee of FESAC, what we can and can not do is controlled by federal policy. Clear rules exist for FESAC itself as a FACA (Federal Advisory Committee Act) committee (can be viewed here: https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/federal-advisory-committee-management/advice-and-guidance/the-federal-advisory-committee-act-faca-brochure). Rules for FACA subcommittees are not identical to the rules for FACA committees (e.g. our meetings do not have to be public) but there are significant contraints on what we can do as we do our work. Unfortunately there is no written policy that applies to all FACA subcommittees and we have had extensive conversations with FES and, through FES, with DOE Office of General Counsel on what is permitted.
After numerous exchanges with DOE OGC trying to find ways to communicate more with the community (thanks to Sam Barish), we were told that no communication of draft committee work could occur, period. We are not allowed to reveal the outcomes of any of our deliberations to anyone until the final report is approved by FESAC. This means that, unfortunately, communication with the community will largely be one-way (we can take as much input from the community as we need, but can't share our deliberations until the final report is released).
We are providing updates on our progress at two FESAC meetings during the process
We will provide updates on our progress (with as much detail as we are allowed to convey) at two FESAC meetings during the process. The presentations from those meetings can be found here:
Our goal: The FESAC LRP sub-committee strives to maintain the consensus achieved in the CPP, including the adoption of its community agreements
A plan driven by consensus and backed by the community has proven to be essential to maximize the impactof a strategic planning efforts (i.e., growth in program and budget). We face the challenging task of maintaining the consensus achieved by the Community Planning Process (CPP) to produce a plan that entire FES-supported community can get behind, even under constrained budget scenarios.
Just as our strategic planning work will be largely founded on the efforts of the CPP, we also embrace the Community Agreements established in that process, for all interactions within the committee, as well as with the community. Here we remind everyone of these important values:
Make Space, Take Space: we want to hear all voice, loud and shy
Ouch Oops: we all make mistakes; let's acknowledge and learn from them
Respect the pronouns of others: respect everyone's identity
Lean into discomfort: these are difficult converstaions, but necessary for a succesfull plann
No quick fixes: a good strategic plan is a living document and decisions made to get there take time, compromise and hard work
Address the Problem not the Person
Intent ≠ Impact: what we communicate doesn't always have the intended impact; let's acknowledge the miscommunication, learn and try again.
Consensus is not Community: consensus is being able to live with the outcome, it isn't about a majority vote or the loudest voice
Self care is key: we all work better when we feel good. Take care of yourself and the environment around you so that you can be your best in this process.
Private thoughts, public meetings: as we go through this planning process, many thoughts may cross your mind. When communincating your ideas, please remember this is a public setting.
The charge: We are addressing 3 budget scenarios
In Phase II, our purpose is to take the work done in the CPP a step further by fitting the plan into three budget scenarios.
Per the charge to FESAC: “Your report should provide recommendations on the priorities for an optimized FES program over the next ten years (FY 2022-2031) under the following three scenarios with the FY 2019 enacted budget for the FES program as the baseline:”
Constant level of effort (with OMB inflators = 2.2% yearly growth)
Modest growth (2% above OMB inflators = 4.2% yearly growth)
Unconstrained, but prioritized
A note on ITER:
The FESAC charge asks us to “assume that the U.S. contributions to the ITER project will continue throughout this entire period”. Our effor will therefore focus on the non-ITER-project portion of the budget.
Our starting point will be the 2019 enacted budget; we will remove the portion of 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 the assumption that Congress will fund this appropriately without impacting the rest of the projected FES budget.
We will account for ITER operation costs (projections already provided by FES) and costs for the ITER research program
With help from: There are others (than the sub-committee members) who are critical to achiving the goals of Phase II
Laurie Moret played a key role in enabling the success of the CPP process as a strategic planning consultant, and continues in that role with the LRP subcommittee
Sam Barish will be our FES Liaison for this process
The subcommittee is working with two project management experts (plus others working with them) to get costing information on new facilities proposed in the CPP report:
Jeff Hoy (DOE, retired),
Carl Strawbridge (ORNL, retired)
Both Jeff and Carl have extensive experience with large DOE projects including ITER, Spallation Neutron Source...