Martin Greenwald (MIT) presented his planning panel's report entitled "Priorities, Gaps and Opportunities: Towards a Long-Range Strategic Plan for Magnetic Fusion Energy." The panel had been asked in a February 7, 2007 letter from Ray Orbach "to identify the issues arising in a path to Demo, with ITER as a central part of that effort." In its hefty 203-page report, the panel identified 14 issue areas and addressed their prioritization according to their "importance, urgency and generality."

The panel noted that its analysis was "based on the tokamak and its low-aspect ratio and advanced variants" and that "stellarator issues were also reviewed." They noted "other elements, such as inertial confinement, were excluded and alternate concepts were considered only to the extent that they could influence or facilitate, in a significant way, the main-line sequence from ITER to Demo."

In subsequent discussion of the report, which FESAC unanimously felt was excellent, some FESAC members asked whether a charge would be forthcoming on inertial fusion or other elements of the fusion program that would call for a similar analysis of issues on a path to Demo. Fusion office head Ray Fonck answered that no such charge was envisaged.

Richard Hazeltine (U. Texas) presented the report of his panel, charged in an August 9, 2007 letter from Ray Orbach "to conduct a scientific and programmatic review focused on evaluating the NCSX (National Compact Stellarator Experiment) program and its potential effect on the U.S. fusion energy sciences program." The review is one of four reviews completed or underway of NCSX, caused by significant cost increases and schedule delays in the project, which is under construction at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL). Fusion office head Ray Fonck indicated that, in the coming months, his office "will recommend either to re-baseline or cancel NCSX." The current approved baseline cost of NCSX is $102 million. If a new baseline is established, it is expected to be approximately $150 million.

Bill Tang (PPPL) presented the report of his panel, charged in a June 8, 2007 letter from Ray Orbach "to assist in the evaluation of a computational initiative called the Fusion Simulation Project (FSP)." The letter asked FESAC to "critically review the FSP Workshop Report, assess its feasibility, and recommend a course of action." In the discussion, FESAC seemed generally supportive of the initiative but did not want to recommend its implementation absent a study of fusion program priorities as a whole and how the initiative would be included relative to its cost. Fusion office head Ray Fonck did not appear ready to issue a charge to FESAC to evaluate priorities within the fusion program as a whole. He indicated a preference for FESAC to conduct reviews of fusion program subelements separately.

During an extended discussion period on the second day of the meeting, some members of FESAC noted the growing national public discussion of future energy sources and global warming, and the general absence of references to fusion energy in the public discussion. Some FESAC members suggested that DOE revise or clarify its "fusion policy" with respect to developing fusion as an energy source. Fonck discouraged FESAC from making such a suggestion.

No new charges were given to FESAC at the meeting, though some new charges were anticipated prior to the next meeting, tentatively scheduled for February 19-20, 2008.