Sustainable Infrastructure 

Draft Recommendations

Pete Tseronis

Tom Katsioulas

Nicole Coughlin

Steve Griffith

Arman Shehabi

Benson Chan

April 18-19 2023

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only
What is sustainable infrastructure?

2

Economic Sustainability

• Economic and social returns

• Financial sustainability

• Policy

Social Sustainability

• Poverty, social impact, 

community engagement

• Human and labor rights

• Cultural preservation

Environmental Sustainability

• Climate and natural disasters

• Pollution

• Natural environment preservation

• Efficient use of resources

Institutional Sustainability

• Global and national strategies

• Governance and systemic change

• Management systems and 

accountability

• Capacity building Transportation

Water

Energy

Buildings

Green

Infrastructure projects that are planned, designed, constructed, operated, and decommissioned in a manner to ensure economic and

financial, social, environmental (including climate resilience), and institutional sustainability over the entire life cycle of the project.

Source: “What is Sustainable Infrastructure?”, Inter-American Development Bank, Technical Note IDB-TN-1388

Source: Iberdrola, (www.iberdrola.com/sustainability/sustainable-infrastructure)
Representative example opportunities (for IoT)

3

Transportation

Water

Energy

Buildings

Green

• Connected lighting

• Building energy management

• Building environmental control

• Indoor air quality monitoring

• Automated demand response

• Access and security control

• Building automation and management

• Water leakage

• Safety (fire, evacuation, etc.)

• Connected streetlight lighting

• Wastebin monitoring

• Community outdoor AQ monitoring

• Intelligent irrigation

• Storm drain monitoring

• Creek/river flood monitoring

• Water quality monitoring

• Flow monitoring

• Leak detection

• Smart parking

• Micro-mobility (scooters, bikeshare)

• EV charging

• Traffic and safety monitoring

• Public WiFi

• Drones (delivery, inspections)

• Autonomous Vehicles

• Road sensors

• Telematics and fleet management

• Asset tracking

• Microgrids

• Distributed energy resources 

(panels, batteries)

• Smart inverters

• Wind turbine monitoring

• Solar farm panel tracking

• Power monitoring
Common barriers

4

No 

Funding Security

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Old 

Policies

Lack of 

Digital 

Skills

Low 

Awareness

Inadequate 

Infrastructure

Silos

Culture

Eternal 

pilots

Outdated

Processes

Long 

procurement 

cycles

Return on X

X = equity, or 

community, or

Investment

Jurisdiction

Standards 

and 

interopera

bility

Immature 

Tech

Priorities

Privacy Digital 

Divide

Resources

Appetite

Inertia

Brownfield 

projects

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only
Possible areas for recommendations - framework

5

Priorities Innovate Procure Build/ 

Deploy

Operate/

Maintain

Financial (funding/capital, economic model, business model, taxes and credit, other incentives) 

Capabilities and resources (resources, skills, knowledge development)

Policies and regulations

Operations and Programs

Physical and digital infrastructure

Legal

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only
Recommendations

6

National Smart City 

Program Office (11)

Agency Chief Smart 

City Officer (8)

Smart City & 

Infrastructure Extension 

Partnership office (1)

IoT use in federally 

funded projects (2)

Grants for small –

mid sized cities (6)

Grants for 

sustaining 

operations (3)

Student loan forgiveness 

to attract talent to cities 

(4)

IoT performance 

metrics (10)

Smart city 

reference 

architectures (5)

Facilitate adoption 

of IoT standards for 

smart cities (7)

IoT data strategy in 

PPD 21 (9)

Programmatic Funding

Capability

Standards

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only
Recommendations

7

National Smart City 

Program Office (11)

Agency Chief Smart 

City Officer (8)

Smart City & 

Infrastructure Extension 

Partnership office (1)

IoT use in federally 

funded projects (2)

Grants for small –

mid sized cities (6)

Grants for 

sustaining 

operations (3)

Student loan forgiveness 

to attract talent to cities 

(4)

IoT performance 

metrics (10)

Smart city 

reference 

architectures (5)

Facilitate adoption 

of IoT standards for 

smart cities (7)

IoT data strategy in 

PPD 21 (9)

Programmatic Funding

Capability

Standards

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only
#1: Smart city & infrastructure extension partnership office 

8

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

The federal government should 

consider the development of 

Smart City/Infrastructure 

Extension Partnerships (SCIEP).

• Cities/agencies lack expertise, 

tools, resources

• Small cities/agencies even 

further behind

• IoT and smart city and 

infrastructure expertise in 

industry is limited and hard to 

get

• Public procurement process to 

engage private sector 

resources is challenging. New 

model is needed. 

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

• Multidisciplinary expertise 

from technical, ops, 

cybersecurity, etc.

• Public/private/university 

partnerships

• Collaboration with regional 

consortiums

• Limited expertise in 

marketplace and resources 

and expertise may be 

difficult to get

• Department of Energy (renewable 

energy, electrification, etc.)

• Department of Transportation 

(intelligent traffic, roads, highways, 

autonomous vehicles, etc.)

• Department of Commerce/NIST 

(standards, cybersecurity, GCTC, 

regulatory, etc.)

• Department of Homeland 

Security/CISA (cybersecurity, etc.)

• SCIEP in place to support 

projects funded through BIL 

and IRA

• Define role of states in 

supporting and enabling SCIEPs
Barriers addressed

9

No 

Funding Security

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Old 

Policies

Lack of 

Digital 

Skills

Low 

Awareness

Inadequate 

Infrastructure

Silos

Culture

Eternal 

pilots

Outdated

Processes

Long 

procurement 

cycles

Return on X

X = equity, or 

community, or

Investment

Jurisdiction

Standards 

and 

interopera

bility

Immature 

Tech

Priorities

Privacy Digital 

Divide

Resources

Appetite

Inertia

Risk 

tolerance

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Lack of 

Digital 

Skills

Long 

procurement 

cycles

Resources

The federal government should 

consider the development of 

Smart City/Infrastructure 

Extension Partnerships (SCIEP).
#8: Appoint Chief Smart City Officers in federal agencies

10 Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

The Federal Government should 

establish a Smart City Officer 

(SCO) within each of the twentyfour (24) CFO Act agencies.

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations
Barriers addressed

11

No 

Funding Security

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Old 

Policies

Lack of 

Digital 

Skills

Low 

Awareness

Inadequate 

Infrastructure

Silos

Culture

Eternal 

pilots

Outdated

Processes

Long 

procurement 

cycles

Return on X

X = equity, or 

community, or

Investment

Jurisdiction

Standards 

and 

interopera

bility

Immature 

Tech

Priorities

Privacy Digital 

Divide

Resources

Appetite

Inertia

Risk 

tolerance

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Low 

Awareness

Priorities Resources

The Federal Government should 

establish a Smart City Officer 

(SCO) within each of the twentyfour (24) CFO Act agencies.
#11: Federal smart city program office

12

The Federal Government should 

establish a Smart Cities executive 

office of the President to ensure that 

the federal government, state, and 

local government entities can 

effectively plan, implement, and 

manage smart city initiatives across 

the United States. 

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations
Barriers addressed

13

No 

Funding Security

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Old 

Policies

Lack of 

Digital 

Skills

Low 

Awareness

Inadequate 

Infrastructure

Silos

Culture

Eternal 

pilots

Outdated

Processes

Long 

procurement 

cycles

Return on X

X = equity, or 

community, or

Investment

Jurisdiction

Standards 

and 

interopera

bility

Immature 

Tech

Priorities

Privacy Digital 

Divide

Resources

Appetite

Inertia

Risk 

tolerance

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Low 

Awareness Silos

Jurisdiction

Priorities Resources

Appetite

Inertia

The Federal Government should 

establish a Smart Cities executive 

office of the President to ensure that 

the federal government, state, and 

local government entities can 

effectively plan, implement, and 

manage smart city initiatives across 

the United States. 
Recommendations

14

National Smart City 

Program Office (11)

Agency Chief Smart 

City Officer (8)

Smart City & 

Infrastructure Extension 

Partnership office (1)

IoT use in federally 

funded projects (2)

Grants for small –

mid sized cities (6)

Grants for 

sustaining 

operations (3)

Student loan forgiveness 

to attract talent to cities 

(4)

IoT performance 

metrics (10)

Smart city 

reference 

architectures (5)

Facilitate adoption 

of IoT standards for 

smart cities (7)

IoT data strategy in 

PPD 21 (9)

Programmatic Funding

Capability

Standards

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only
#2: Specify use of IoT in federally funded infrastructure projects

15 Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

The federal government should 

consider the specification and 

utilization of IoT and “smart” 

technologies into infrastructure and 

other projects that are funded in full, 

or partially, with federal funding.

• No one will specify IoT on 

their own into infrastructure 

projects unless project owners 

demand it

• Examples

• DoT specification of SBA 

8a resources on projects

• USACE and GSA 

specifying use of BIM on 

federal building 

construction projects

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

• Easy to say “use IoT”, but 

what IoT to be used? 

• Some concrete and specific 

IoT applications should be 

defined for inclusion in the 

project ahead of time

• Coordination with other 

federal agencies in alignment 

with their objectives

• Project owners no 

knowledge of IoT

• Limited expertise and 

resources in marketplace to 

support IoT projects

All federal agencies that 

provide grants and funding 

for projects where IoT may be 

incorporated

• SCIEP may be a resource

• IoT may introduce 

cybersecurity vulnerabilities 

to system. Some minimum 

cybersecurity requirements 

need to be imposed.
Barriers addressed

16

No 

Funding Security

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Old 

Policies

Lack of 

Digital 

Skills

Low 

Awareness

Inadequate 

Infrastructure

Silos

Culture

Eternal 

pilots

Outdated

Processes

Long 

procurement 

cycles

Return on X

X = equity, or 

community, or

Investment

Jurisdiction

Standards 

and 

interopera

bility

Immature 

Tech

Priorities

Privacy Digital 

Divide

Resources

Appetite

Inertia

Risk 

tolerance

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

No 

Funding

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Priorities

Appetite

Inertia

Brownfield The federal government should 

consider the specification and 

utilization of IoT and “smart” 

technologies into infrastructure and 

other projects that are funded in full, 

or partially, with federal funding.

Low 

Awareness
#3: Grants for sustaining and operation of IoT and smart projects

17 Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

The federal government should 

consider funding models for 

sustaining and support beyond 

the initial acquisition and 

building of new projects.

• Initial procurement, acquisition 

and construction costs. But 

operating and maintaining an 

asset over its useful life can be 

expensive, and municipalities 

may not have resources and 

funds for this. 

• Examples

• CARES funding for 300 WiFi

access points

• USDA funding for fiber 

infrastructure buildout in 

rural area

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

All federal agencies that 

provide grants and funding 

for projects where IoT may be 

incorporated
Barriers addressed

18

No 

Funding Security

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Old 

Policies

Lack of 

Digital 

Skills

Low 

Awareness

Inadequate 

Infrastructure

Silos

Culture

Eternal 

pilots

Outdated

Processes

Long 

procurement 

cycles

Return on X

X = equity, or 

community, or

Investment

Jurisdiction

Standards 

and 

interopera

bility

Immature 

Tech

Priorities

Privacy Digital 

Divide

Resources

Appetite

Inertia

Risk 

tolerance

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

No 

Funding Resources

Appetite

The federal government should 

consider funding models for 

sustaining and support beyond 

the initial acquisition and 

building of new projects.
#6: Grants for small and midsize cities/agencies

19 Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

The federal government should 

consider offering grants to 

support smart city projects that 

target small and midsize cities 

and agencies.

• Most American cities are 

small. 

• 4,005 cities between 5K 

and 50K, 

• 476 cities between 50K 

and 100K

• 238 cities between 100K 

and 250K

• Equitable access to benefits 

for smaller cities. Smaller cities 

are highly dependent on 

outside funding sources for 

many projects

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

All federal agencies that 

provide grants and funding 

for projects where IoT may be 

incorporated

• SCIEP may be a resource to 

help smaller cities secure 

grants and implement projects

• BIL and IRA funding for grants

• Piggyback grants in those 

regions that have secured BIL 

broadband infrastructure 

investments

• ROI and feasibility criteria is 

different for smaller and rural 

areas

• Smaller cities lack pre-req 

digital and communications 

infrastructure to support 

smart city/region projects

• Focus on regional projects that 

benefit multiple small cities 

(projects that cut across city 

borders)

• Smart city projects and 

outcomes different for smaller 

cities

• No one size fits all. Expect wide 

range of projects for funding
Barriers addressed

20

No 

Funding Security

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Old 

Policies

Lack of 

Digital 

Skills

Low 

Awareness

Inadequate 

Infrastructure

Silos

Culture

Eternal 

pilots

Outdated

Processes

Long 

procurement 

cycles

Return on X

X = equity, or 

community, or

Investment

Jurisdiction

Standards 

and 

interopera

bility

Immature 

Tech

Priorities

Privacy Digital 

Divide

Resources

Appetite

Inertia

Risk 

tolerance

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

No 

Funding

Low 

Awareness

Inadequate 

Infrastructure Priorities Resources

Appetite

Return on X

X = equity, or 

community, or

Investment

The federal government should 

consider offering grants to 

support smart city projects that 

target small and midsize cities 

and agencies.
Recommendations

21

National Smart City 

Program Office (11)

Agency Chief Smart 

City Officer (8)

Smart City & 

Infrastructure Extension 

Partnership office (1)

IoT use in federally 

funded projects (2)

Grants for small –

mid sized cities (6)

Grants for 

sustaining 

operations (3)

Student loan forgiveness 

to attract talent to cities 

(4)

IoT performance 

metrics (10)

Smart city 

reference 

architectures (5)

Facilitate adoption 

of IoT standards for 

smart cities (7)

IoT data strategy in 

PPD 21 (9)

Programmatic Funding

Capability

Standards

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only
#5: Develop integrated smart city reference architectures

22 Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

The federal government should 

facilitate and support the 

development of smart city and 

sustainable infrastructure 

reference architectures.

• No standard definition of smart 

city. Most models include city 

only.

• Smaller smart cities different 

from larger ones

• No integrated model across 

cities, regions, states, utilities 

(smart cities not just “cities” 

only)

• Most smart cities today are 

just silos of smart technology 

that don’t integrate

• Collaboration between cities, 

regions, states

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

• NIST GCTC has existing 

structure and model to 

engage industry, academia, 

and government

• Consider inclusion of 

counties, states, regional 

agencies, utilities, etc.

• NIST - GCTC

• NSF - Smart and connected 

communities

• DOE 

• DOT

• DHS/CISA

• Build on initial efforts by 

NIST to define smart city 

framework 

• Consider building on 

reference models from 

private and non-profit 

entities
Barriers addressed

23

No 

Funding Security

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Old 

Policies

Lack of 

Digital 

Skills

Low 

Awareness

Inadequate 

Infrastructure

Silos

Culture

Eternal 

pilots

Outdated

Processes

Long 

procurement 

cycles

Return on X

X = equity, or 

community, or

Investment

Jurisdiction

Standards 

and 

interopera

bility

Immature 

Tech

Priorities

Privacy Digital 

Divide

Resources

Appetite

Inertia

Risk 

tolerance

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Low 

Awareness Silos

Jurisdiction

Standards 

and 

interopera

bility

The federal government should 

facilitate and support the 

development of smart city and 

sustainable infrastructure 

reference architectures.
#7: Facilitate adoption of smart city standards

24 Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

The federal government should 

facilitate and support the 

adoption of smart city and 

sustainable infrastructure 

standards.

• Technologies which may 

incorporate different 

standards, and create issues 

around interoperability. For 

example, traffic systems 

• SCADA systems may not easily 

integrate with other systems, 

including more modern IoT 

solutions.

• Municipalities do not have 

budgets to change out systems. 

The solutions they procure 

need to be futureproofed.

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

All federal agencies that 

provide grants and funding 

for projects where IoT may be 

incorporated

• Consider doing this in 

conjunction with 

recommendation 2 (federal 

funding) and 6 (grants for 

small cities)
Barriers addressed

25

No 

Funding Security

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Old 

Policies

Lack of 

Digital 

Skills

Low 

Awareness

Inadequate 

Infrastructure

Silos

Culture

Eternal 

pilots

Outdated

Processes

Long 

procurement 

cycles

Return on X

X = equity, or 

community, or

Investment

Jurisdiction

Standards 

and 

interopera

bility

Immature 

Tech

Priorities

Privacy Digital 

Divide

Resources

Appetite

Inertia

Risk 

tolerance

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Security

Old 

Policies

Low 

Awareness

Inadequate 

Infrastructure

Silos

Outdated

Processes

Standards 

and 

interopera

bility

Immature 

Tech

Privacy

Brownfield

The federal government should 

facilitate and support the 

adoption of smart city and 

sustainable infrastructure 

standards.
#9: Update PPD 21 to include sector specific IoT data strategy

26 Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

The Federal Government should 

update Presidential Policy Directive 

21 (PPD-21): Critical Infrastructure 

Security and Resilience requiring a 

sector-specific Internet of Things 

(IoT) data strategy. 

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations
Barriers addressed

27

No 

Funding Security

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Old 

Policies

Lack of 

Digital 

Skills

Low 

Awareness

Inadequate 

Infrastructure

Silos

Culture

Eternal 

pilots

Outdated

Processes

Long 

procurement 

cycles

Return on X

X = equity, or 

community, or

Investment

Jurisdiction

Standards 

and 

interopera

bility

Immature 

Tech

Priorities

Privacy Digital 

Divide

Resources

Appetite

Inertia

Risk 

tolerance

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Old 

Policies

Low 

Awareness Silos

Outdated

Processes

Standards 

and 

interopera

bility

Privacy

The Federal Government should 

update Presidential Policy Directive 

21 (PPD-21): Critical Infrastructure 

Security and Resilience requiring a 

sector-specific Internet of Things 

(IoT) data strategy. 
#10: IoT performance metrics

28 Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

The Sector Risk Management Agencies 

(SRMAs) shall consider collaborating 

with sector partners and develop IoT 

performance metrics intended to 

strengthen critical infrastructure 

security and resilience.

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations
Barriers addressed

29

No 

Funding Security

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Old 

Policies

Lack of 

Digital 

Skills

Low 

Awareness

Inadequate 

Infrastructure

Silos

Culture

Eternal 

pilots

Outdated

Processes

Long 

procurement 

cycles

Return on X

X = equity, or 

community, or

Investment

Jurisdiction

Standards 

and 

interopera

bility

Immature 

Tech

Priorities

Privacy Digital 

Divide

Resources

Appetite

Inertia

Risk 

tolerance

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Old 

Policies

Low 

Awareness

Inadequate 

Infrastructure

Silos

Outdated

Processes

Return on X

X = equity, or 

community, or

Investment

Brownfield The Sector Risk Management Agencies 

(SRMAs) shall consider collaborating 

with sector partners and develop IoT 

performance metrics intended to 

strengthen critical infrastructure 

security and resilience.
Recommendations

30

National Smart City 

Program Office (11)

Agency Chief Smart 

City Officer (8)

Smart City & 

Infrastructure Extension 

Partnership office (1)

IoT use in federally 

funded projects (2)

Grants for small –

mid sized cities (6)

Grants for 

sustaining 

operations (3)

Student loan forgiveness 

to attract talent to cities 

(4)

IoT performance 

metrics (10)

Smart city 

reference 

architectures (5)

Facilitate adoption 

of IoT standards for 

smart cities (7)

IoT data strategy in 

PPD 21 (9)

Programmatic Funding

Capability

Standards

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only
#4: Student loan forgiveness programs to attract students to smart city projects

31 Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

The federal government should 

consider “student loan forgiveness” 

programs in exchange for providing 

critical emerging technology (IoT, 

data science, cybersecurity, etc.) skills 

to municipalities and agencies.

• Cities lack critical digital 

talent needed 

• Small cities and rural areas 

face brain drain

• Cities (large and small) 

unable to attract future 

digital talent at scale to make 

impact

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

• Resources can work directly 

with cities and agencies

• Resources can work in the 

SCIEPs

• Certain critical skills like 

cybersecurity and data 

science may still be hard to 

get

• There may not be sufficient 

numbers of skilled 

resources to make this 

work

• Department of Energy (renewable 

energy, electrification, etc.)

• Department of Transportation 

(intelligent traffic, roads, highways, 

autonomous vehicles, etc.)

• Department of Commerce/NIST 

(standards, cybersecurity, GCTC, 

regulatory, etc.)

• Department of Homeland 

Security/CISA (cybersecurity, etc.)

• Consider doing this in 

conjunction with 

recommendation 1 (SCIEP) 

and 2 (federally funded 

projects)
Barriers addressed

32

No 

Funding Security

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Old 

Policies

Lack of 

Digital 

Skills

Low 

Awareness

Inadequate 

Infrastructure

Silos

Culture

Eternal 

pilots

Outdated

Processes

Long 

procurement 

cycles

Return on X

X = equity, or 

community, or

Investment

Jurisdiction

Standards 

and 

interopera

bility

Immature 

Tech

Priorities

Privacy Digital 

Divide

Resources

Appetite

Inertia

Risk 

tolerance

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Lack of 

Digital 

Skills

Low 

Awareness

Resources
Recommendations

33

National Smart City 

Program Office (11)

Agency Chief Smart 

City Officer (8)

Smart City & 

Infrastructure Extension 

Partnership office (1)

IoT use in federally 

funded projects (2)

Grants for small –

mid sized cities (6)

Grants for 

sustaining 

operations (3)

Student loan forgiveness 

to attract talent to cities 

(4)

IoT performance 

metrics (10)

Smart city 

reference 

architectures (5)

Facilitate adoption 

of IoT standards for 

smart cities (7)

IoT data strategy in 

PPD 21 (9)

Programmatic Funding

Capability

Standards

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only
Prioritization

34

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Implementation Effort

Impact

Recommendations

R1 Smart City & Infrastructure Extension Partnership office 

R2 IoT use in federally funded projects 

R3 Grants for sustaining operations 

R4 Student loan forgiveness to attract talent to cities 

R5 Smart city reference architectures 

R6 Grants for small – mid sized cities 

R7 Facilitate adoption of IoT standards for smart cities 

R8 Agency Chief Smart City Officer 

R9 IoT data strategy in PPD 21 

R10 IoT performance metrics 

R11 National Smart City Program Office 

High

Low High

Low

R1

R3

R4 R5

R6

R7

R8

R9 R10

R11

R2