ix a unique forefront of the field and would complement the programs at the other two laboratories. The support required for user groups, mostly from universities who plan and carry out the experiments, remains a constant fraction of the operating expenses. Figure 5, page 31, shows the projected distribution of operating funds through FY 1985. Capital Equipment funds, required to provide the apparatus by which new discoveries can be made, are an important element of the plan. The long range equipment funding levels are shown in Figure 6, page 33. derive from the need for continuing programs at the existing facilities, incremental needs for initial complements of equipment at new facilities, and the continuing needs at new facilities as they become established. Alternative Funding Levels These Consideration of the effects of four funding constraint levels were agreed to in discussions with the OMB. These levels are listed and discussed below. In each case the constraints refer to the average annual level of effort over the FY 1976-85 period and include total support for the program from all Federal sources. All funds are expressed in FY 1976 dollars. Level I This is defined as: 1. 2. Operating and equipment. $245 million per year. Same as for New facility construction. $50 million per year. About two-thirds that for FY 1960-74. The posture and plans discussed earlier were structured to meet the constraints of this level, which is below the average level of the U.S. program in FY 1965-74, and well below the funding for the European high energy physics program. Nevertheless, it represents a good program which would maintain a strong and leading role for the U.S. It provides for reasonable utilization of operating facilities and the timely introduction of new facilities. X Level II This is defined as a level close to optimum for the program. Included in this level would be the additional construction of the proposed Cornell 8 GeV electron-positron colliding beam facility; other colliding beam capabilities at ISABELLE and/or PEP, such as proton-antiproton, and electron-proton; a superconducting stretcher ring at the AGS; enhanced AIP funding; and additional beam lines, experimental areas and large detection systems. Also included would be higher utilization levels; more rapid development of the Energy Saver/Doubler; and a higher R&D level of effort for instrumentation and detectors. Due to the complexity assessing the detailed structure of the program at this level, a HEPAP Subpanel has been set up to study it and submit a report in six to eight months. This level would clearly result in a loss of U.S. leadership in the field. Only one of the new facilities (PEP) could be completed prior to 1985 and only one of the remaining two could be attempted and completed in the next fifteen years. Utilization would be no more, or less than the present 50 per cent levels, and during the early part of the period would fall to near 40 per cent to permit developing the Energy Saver/Doubler and bringing it into being. The future of high energy physics in the U.S. would be placed in question and the advancement of the science worldwide would be slowed. Level IV This is defined as about midway between Levels I and III. This level would permit sticking to the three-prong approach to new facilities, however the third step would be substantially stretched out and delayed. The Energy Saver/Doubler could be adequately pursued; however, xi there would be little improvement in present utilization levels and substantial components of ongoing programs would have to be eliminated as new facilities come into operation. Initial complements of equipment for the new facilities would be reduced. Long Range Planning and Budgeting The inherent long time scales associated with high energy physics, the relatively high costs of large accelerators and their associated facilities, and the need for a continual infusion of new technological capabilities, are all features which demand careful long term planning. The lack of agreed-on long term budgeting in the past has caused inefficiencies and some damage to the program. Permission for flexibility for operating funds to be overrun or carried over between fiscal years (as little as 2%), would enhance the ability of laboratories to respond to late program changes and would significantly increase efficiency of the program. An example of the successful implementation of longer range budgeting is provided by the "Bannier Procedure" which is used at CERN. Firm budgets for a given fiscal year are approved one full year in advance and provisional budgets are approved for an additional two years. Each is in funds of constant purchasing power, and the actual funding is adjusted as necessary be changes in the price index. A similar procedure would make a significant contribution to the effectiveness of the U.S. program. RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS FROM REPORT OF THE 1975 SUBPANEL ON NEW FACILITIES OF THE HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS ADVISORY PANEL TO THE ENERGY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION U. S. Energy Research & Development Administration Washington, D. C. 20545 July 1975 (183) 17 Section IV Recommendations and Comments I. We reaffirm the Weisskopf Subpanel's recommendation for authorization in FY 1976 of the LBL/SLAC proposal to construct the electron-positron colliding beam facility PEP. The facility will operate at beam energies between 5 and 18 GeV with a peak luminosity of 1032cm-2sec-1 at 15 GeV. If construction funds are not available in FY 1976, we recommend as our highest priority the construction funding of this project in FY 1977. II. We recommend authorization in FY 1977 of the BNL proposal III. that BNL roughly double its effort in FY 1976 for research We reaffirm the Weisskopf Subpanel recommendation that funds 1/ We remind the reader that the recommendations given in this section refer exclusively to the funding Level A. The alternative funding levels are considered in Section V. |