Krebs Responds to Fusion Energy Advisory Committee Report
At its meeting in Washington on January 26 and 27, the Department of Energy’s Fusion Energy Advisory Committee (FEAC) presented its recommendations for a revised fusion program to DOE’s Director of Energy Research, Martha Krebs. After Congress cut the program’s budget by one-third over last year, DOE asked FEAC to restructure the program to fit within lower funding levels. The committee responded by developing a new mission and goals for the fusion program that would emphasize basic plasma and fusion science and alternative concepts, while shifting away from a more-costly focus on fusion power production.
As reported in FYIs #13, 14, and 15, the committee’s report examined three funding levels near the FY 1996 appropriation of $244.1 million for fusion energy. An annual funding level of $250 million over the next several years was considered the “constant level of effort” case. The report also evaluated the restructured program in the context of annual budgets of $275 million, and “significantly below the $250 million level.” The report warns that at a budget much below $250 million, the goals of the program would “become conflicting and divisive.” It finds that the restructured program “can fit within a constant annual budget,” but concludes that the goals “can be accomplished most effectively at a funding level of $274 million.”
On the second day of the meeting, the committee briefed Krebs on the report’s findings. FEAC members explained the advantages and disadvantages of each funding scenario, and provided justifications for both of the higher funding levels ($250 million and $275 million), but did not specify which amount DOE ought to propose in its budget request.
It will be up to Krebs and other energy officials to determine the department’s request for fusion energy when the Administration presents its fiscal year 1997 budget submission to Congress. Krebs indicated at the January 27 meeting that the constant funding level ($250 million annually) could “be supported and defended” when DOE justifies its budget request on Capitol Hill. She added that if extra money could be found within the department’s budget, the Secretary and the department were “willing to exercise a lot of effort on behalf of the [fusion] program.”
President Clinton’s FY 1997 budget submission is due on Capitol Hill by early February, but because of the budget impasse and uncertain FY 1996 funding levels for many programs, the Administration is expected to only provide a brief budget outline by February 5, with a more detailed submission to follow by about March 18. DOE, which had its 1996 appropriations passed and signed into law last year, is on firmer ground than NSF, NASA, and some other agencies, but it is unknown when the department will make decisions on its 1997 request, or how the request will be received by Congress. Michael Knotek of Battelle, who chaired FEAC’s Strategic Planning Subcommittee, said the key message he was hearing from Capitol Hill was that a strong consensus by the fusion community on behalf of the restructured program was all-important. Consensus might be “worth $50 million” in the upcoming budget negotiations, he reported.
