Sustainable Infrastructure Draft Recommendations

Pete Tseronis

Tom Katsioulas

Nicole Coughlin

Steve Griffith

Arman Shehabi

Benson Chan

May 16-17 2023

Draft 1 – In Progress Work for Discussion Only
Common barriers

Draft 2 – In Progress Work for Discussion Only
Programmatic

National Smart City 

Program Office (11)

Agency Chief Smart 

City Officer (8)

Smart City & 

Infrastructure Extension 

Partnership office (1)

Funding

IoT use in federally 

funded projects (2)

Grants for small –

mid sized cities (6)

Models for 

sustaining 

operations (3)

Energy efficient 

technologies in federally 

funded infrastructure 

projects (13)

Standards

IoT performance 

metrics (10)

Smart city 

reference models 

(5)

Facilitate adoption 

of IoT standards for 

smart cities (7)

IoT data strategy in 

PPD 21 (9)

Support standards in 

sustainable 

infrastructure (13)

Capability

Student loan forgiveness 

to attract talent to cities 

(4)

Recommendations - 1

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only 3
Programmatic

National Smart City 

Program Office (11)

Agency Chief Smart 

City Officer (8)

Smart City & 

Infrastructure Extension 

Partnership office (1)

Funding

IoT use in federally 

funded projects (2)

Grants for small –

mid sized cities (6)

Models for 

sustaining 

operations (3)

Energy efficient 

technologies in federally 

funded infrastructure 

projects (13)

Standards

IoT performance 

metrics (10)

Smart city 

reference models 

(5)

Facilitate adoption 

of IoT standards for 

smart cities (7)

IoT data strategy in 

PPD 21 (9)

Support standards in 

sustainable 

infrastructure (13)

Capability

Student loan forgiveness 

to attract talent to cities 

(4)

Recommendations -2

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only 4
Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

#1: Smart city & infrastructure extension partnership office 

The federal government should 

consider the development of 

Smart City and Sustainability 

Extension Partnerships (SCSEP).

• Cities/agencies lack expertise, 

tools, resources

• Small cities/agencies even 

further behind

• IoT in smart city and 

sustainable infrastructure 

expertise in industry is limited 

and hard to get

• Public procurement process to 

engage private sector 

resources is challenging. New 

model is needed. 

• Multidisciplinary expertise 

from technical, ops, 

cybersecurity, etc.

• Public (local, state), industry, 

university partnerships

• Collaboration with regional 

consortiums

• Leverage USDA, MEP, state, 

existing infrastructure

• No obvious federal owner

• Limited expertise in 

marketplace and resources 

and expertise may be difficult 

to get

• Establishing an infrastructure 

requires significant time and 

resources

• 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.)

• SCSEP in place to support 

projects funded through BIL 

and IRA

• Define role of states in 

supporting and enabling SCSEPs

• Consider offering some services 

through existing extension 

offices, regional consortium 

partnerships, or with existing 

state programs

5
Appetite No 

Funding Security

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Old 

Policies

L

Laacckk o off

D

Diiggiittaall 

S

Skkiillslls

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

Inertia

Brownfield 

projects

Barriers addressed #1

6

The federal government should 

consider the development of 

Smart City/Infrastructure 

Extension Partnerships (SCIEP).

Long 

procurement 

cycles

Resources

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only
Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

#8: Appoint Chief Smart City Officers in federal agencies

The Federal Government should 

establish a Smart City Officer 

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

This positions will serve as a 

business executive and 

technology strategist, developing 

and governing a comprehensive 

strategic, tactical, and operational 

roadmap intended to 

communicate how existing and 

future projects are/can support 

organizational mission, inform 

resourcing decisions, and identify 

enterprise-wide investment 

opportunities

Once assigned via the Agency 

Head, e.g., Cabinet Secretary, 

the SCO will be required to 

develop a 90-day plan to 

include resources necessary to 

carry out the SCO program.

Lack of funding to support the 

SCO, notably in terms of staff 

needed (federal and 

contractor) and 

communications/outreach

The 24 CFO Act agencies, 

with consideration being 

given to the non-CFO Act 

agencies

Ensure that the SCO in each 

agency will participate in a 

Community of Practice, like the 

Federal CIO Council format, 

which, in turn, will serve to 

convene SCOs across all 

agencies

7
Appetite 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

Inertia

Brownfield 

projects

Barriers addressed #8

The Federal Government should 

establish a Smart City Officer 

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

Priorities

Leadership and ownership

Leadership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Low 

Awareness

Priorities Resources

Draft 8 – In Progress Work for Discussion Only
Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

#11: Federal smart city program office

The Federal Government should establish 

a Smart Cities Program Office within the 

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. 

This central office will 

ensure that the federal 

government, state, and local 

government entities can 

effectively plan, implement, 

and manage smart city 

initiatives across the United 

States

The SCPO will align with the U.S. Chief 

Technology Officer Team to maximize the 

benefits of IOT and corresponding data for 

critical infrastructure sectors. The SCPO 

will develop a 360-day approach/plan 

addressing how the Federal Government 

can help cities develop a corresponding 

strategic roadmap for their smart city (and 

IoT) initiatives. This includes identifying 

goals, prioritizing initiatives, and 

developing a roadmap for implementation.

• Lack of coordination from the 

Executive Office

• Minimal support from designated 

agency leadership

• Lack of branding

• Lack of coordination, stakeholder 

engagement, resource allocation, 

and performance monitoring

This office should be aligned with the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy to: 1) work with 

federal departments and agencies and with 

Congress to create bold visions, unified strategies, 

clear plans, wise policies, and effective, equitable 

programs for IoT and Smart Cities modernization; 

2) engage with external partners, including 

industry, academia, philanthropic organizations, 

and civil society; state, local, Tribal and territorial 

governments; and other nations; and 3) ensure 

equity, inclusion, and integrity in all aspects of IoT 

implementations

Ensure that the Coordination and 

Integration with the NIST (FWIoT and 

GCTC) protocols are in place, i.e. IoT 

implementations involve the integration 

of multiple technologies, systems, and 

stakeholders. A SCPO can provide a 

centralized coordination mechanism to 

ensure that all the elements are 

integrated seamlessly.

9
Appetite 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

Inertia

Brownfield 

projects

Barriers addressed #11

10

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. 

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only
Programmatic

National Smart City 

Program Office (11)

Agency Chief Smart 

City Officer (8)

Smart City & 

Infrastructure Extension 

Partnership office (1)

Funding

IoT use in federally 

funded projects (2)

Grants for small –

mid sized cities (6)

Models for 

sustaining 

operations (3)

Energy efficient 

technologies in federally 

funded infrastructure 

projects (13)

Standards

IoT performance 

metrics (10)

Smart city 

reference models 

(5)

Facilitate adoption 

of IoT standards for 

smart cities (7)

IoT data strategy in 

PPD 21 (9)

Support standards in 

sustainable 

infrastructure (13)

Capability

Student loan forgiveness 

to attract talent to cities 

(4)

Recommendations -3

11 Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only
Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

#2: Specify use of IoT in federally funded infrastructure projects

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 projects unless 

project owners demand it

• Compliance drives adoption

• DoT specification of SBA 8a 

resources on projects

• USACE and GSA specifying use 

of BIM on federal building 

construction projects

• Specification in government 

projects signals government 

support, interest and 

confidence in IoT.

• Easy to say “use IoT”, but what IoT 

to be used? 

• A broader vision and 

understanding of how IoT can be 

incorporated is needed to drive 

requirements and specifications

• Project owners have very limited 

knowledge of IoT

• Limited expertise and resources 

in government and marketplace 

to support IoT projects

• IoT adds complexity, cost and 

potential risk to projects

• No pre-defined acceptable or 

allowable list of IoT types for 

projects

All federal agencies that 

provide grants and funding 

for projects where IoT may be 

incorporated

• Development of IoT reference 

models for projects. Work with 

industry stakeholders to define.

• IoT may introduce cybersecurity 

vulnerabilities to system. Require 

NIST cyber frameworks to be used

• Introduce IoT in GSA owned and 

operated facilities

• Incorporate IoT on BIL/IRA 

projects

• SCSEP could be a facilitator

12
Appetite 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

Inertia

Brownfield 

projects

Barriers addressed #2

Draft 13 – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

The federal government should 

specify and utilize energy efficient 

and sustainable technologies into 

infrastructure and other projects that 

are funded in full, or partially, with 

federal funding. 
Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

#12: Specify use of energy efficient technologies in federally funded infrastructure projects

The federal government should 

specify and utilize energy efficient 

and sustainable technologies into 

infrastructure and other projects that 

are funded in full, or partially, with 

federal funding. 

• The US is behind other 

countries in decarbonizing and 

reducing GHG

• Incorporate Energy Savings 

Performance Contracts Incorporate 

building energy use benchmarking

• Adoption of building and energy codes 

that include language like automated 

demand response technologies, EV 

Read, EV Capable, etc.

• GSA FAR specify energy efficiency reqts

for procurement in federal owned and 

operated buildings

• Funds: high costs to scale 

conversion to energy efficiency

• Supply chain: issues in 

distribution transformers, mining 

limitations for batteries, etc. that 

manufacturing is trying to 

overcome

• Legacy equipment: existing 

equipment, such as boilers, 

furnters, etc. have long lifetime

All federal agencies that 

provide grants and funding 

for projects where IoT may be 

incorporated

14
Appetite 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

Inertia

Brownfield 

projects

Barriers addressed #12

15

No 

Funding

Leaership 

and 

ownership

No Vision 

and 

Strategy

Appetite

Inertia

Brownfield

Low 

Awareness

The federal government should 

specify and utilize energy efficient 

and sustainable technologies into 

infrastructure and other projects that 

are funded in full, or partially, with 

federal funding. 

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only
Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

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

The federal government should 

consider new models for 

sustaining and support in 

considering project feasibility.

• Grants offset acquisition and 

build, but many organizations lack 

financial means and resources to 

sustain ops and maintenance. 

They either shut down after funds 

run out or do not even apply

• IoT requires additional levels of 

support and resources that buyers 

may not have accounted for – s/w, 

data maintenance, data analysis, 

• IoT enables new business and 

operating models, which impacts 

project and service economics

Types of models

• Extended Funding – extending 

funding for O&M for select 

applicants (rural, tribal, small 

towns, etc.)

• Regional cost sharing – encourage 

multiple cities in a region to apply 

as one

• Innovative – encourage innovative 

models (corporate, sponsorships)

• Non-traditional and innovative 

models may be difficult to 

evaluate and track

• IoT funding may be embedded 

into a broader funding package 

and not easy to separate the two

All federal agencies that 

provide grants and funding 

for projects where IoT may be 

incorporated

• SCSEP should consider developing 

expertise to help organizations 

sustain IoT 

• Consider adding these models in 

some of the appropriate grants 

and programs funded through 

federal funding sources

16
Appetite 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

Inertia

Brownfield 

projects

Barriers addressed #3

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only 17

The federal government should 

consider funding models for 

sustaining and support beyond 

the initial acquisition and 

building of new projects.
Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

#6: Grants for small and midsize cities/agencies

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, 

and 238 cities between 

100K and 250K

• Equitable access to benefits for 

smaller cities. Smaller cities are 

dependent on outside funding 

sources for many projects as 

they don’t have the same 

methods as larger ones

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

18
Appetite 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

Inertia

Brownfield 

projects

Barriers addressed #6

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only 19

The federal government should 

consider offering grants to 

support smart city projects that 

target small and midsize cities 

and agencies.
Programmatic

National Smart City 

Program Office (11)

Agency Chief Smart 

City Officer (8)

Smart City & 

Infrastructure Extension 

Partnership office (1)

Funding

IoT use in federally 

funded projects (2)

Grants for small –

mid sized cities (6)

Models for 

sustaining 

operations (3)

Energy efficient 

technologies in federally 

funded infrastructure 

projects (13)

Standards

IoT performance 

metrics (10)

Smart city 

reference models 

(5)

Facilitate adoption 

of IoT standards for 

smart cities (7)

IoT data strategy in 

PPD 21 (9)

Support standards in 

sustainable 

infrastructure (13)

Capability

Student loan forgiveness 

to attract talent to cities 

(4)

20

Recommendations -4

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only
Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

#5: Develop integrated smart city reference models

The federal government should 

facilitate and support the 

development and use of smart 

city and sustainable 

infrastructure reference models.

• Smart city market is fragmented 

and broad. No standard definition 

of a smart city.

• Smart city efforts are DIY and not 

replicable

• Most smart city efforts are 

piecemealed, leading to lack of 

interoperability, can’t scale, more 

costly, and have vulnerabilities.

• No standardized and usable 

reference models that planners 

can use

• Existing models look at cities, not 

ecosystems (communities, 

regions, counties, states)

• NIST GCTC has existing structure 

and model to engage industry, 

academia, and government

• Consider inclusion of counties, 

states, regional agencies, utilities,

• No one size fits all – small vs large 

vs regions, buildings, 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 nonprofit entities

• Consider requiring projects that 

use federal fund to use standard 

models

• Leverage GCTC infrastructure 

and model to drive collaboration

• Complexity of coordinating diverse 

stakeholders to define models

• There may be work done by 

industry and universities. 

Converging may be challenging

21
Appetite 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

Inertia

Brownfield 

projects

Barriers addressed #5

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.

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only 22
Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

#7: Facilitate adoption of smart city standards

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.

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), recommendation 5 

(models) and 6 (grants for small 

cities)

• Consider specifying that projects 

that use federal funding adhere to 

some agreed to set of standards or 

open standards

• Different agencies within the 

govt have different requirements 

and standards (EPA for AQ)

• Concern for 

• Consider incorporating the need 

for open standards and/or 

standards body or consortium 

developed standards as part of 

the requirements for federal 

funded projects

• It’s easy to say use standards, but 

which ones?

23
Appetite 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

Inertia

Brownfield 

projects

Barriers addressed #7

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only 24

The federal government should 

facilitate and support the 

adoption of smart city and 

sustainable infrastructure 

standards.
Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

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

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.

Existing Presidential Policy 

Directives are outdated and 

should be updated to reflect 

the current risk associated with 

critical infrastructure reliability, 

resilience, security, and 

sustainability

• Development of the language and 

context should include input from 

the National Security Council, the 

Office of Management and Budget, 

and Intelligence Communities.

• Once developed, the language 

could/should be shared with 

additional communities of 

interest/practice, e.g. NERC, FERC, 

ISACs.

• Lack of coordination among the key 

stakeholders, based on disparate 

missions

• Most of the critical infrastructure 

assets/systems are owned and 

operated by private sector entities, 

thus, requiring crucial conversations 

with said infrastructure 

owners/operators

All SRMAs

• Continuous and comprehensive asset 

visibility is a bsic precondition for any 

organization to effectively manage critical 

infrastructure risk. Accurate and up-to-date 

accounting of assets residing on federal 

networks is also essential.

• Enhancing visibility into agency assets and 

associated vulnerabilities, focusing on two 

core activities essential to improving 

operational visibility for a successful 

cybersecurity program: asset discovery and 

vulnerability enumeration.

25
Appetite 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

Inertia

Brownfield 

projects

Barriers addressed #9

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only 26

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. 
Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

#10: IoT performance metrics

The Sector Risk Management 

Agencies (SRMAs) shall collaborate 

with sector partners and develop IoT 

performance metrics intended to 

strengthen critical infrastructure 

security and resilience.

The expansive 

development and adoption 

of IoT assets and systems 

should map to IoT 

performance metrics 

intended to strengthen 

critical infrastructure 

security and resilience

• Agency Chief Technology Officer and 

associated program office could serve 

as the nexus for convening peer 

stakeholders, e.g. CIO, CDO, CPO.

• Defining the performance metrics 

will need to be in conjunction with 

owners/operators of critical 

infrastructure assets/systems (both IT 

and OT).

• Lack of coordination from the 

Executive Office

• Minimal support from designated 

agency leadership

• Lack of branding

• Lack of coordination, stakeholder 

engagement, resource allocation, 

and performance monitoring

The 24 CFO Act agencies, with 

consideration being given to 

the non-CFO Act agencies

Ensure that the SCO in each 

agency will participate in a 

Community of Practice, like the 

Federal CIO Council format, 

which, in turn, will serve to 

convene SCOs across all 

agencies

27
Appetite 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

Inertia

Brownfield 

projects

Barriers addressed #10

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only 28

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.
Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

#13: Support existing industry standards in sustainable infrastructure

The federal government should 

support existing industry standards 

development activities with respect 

to energy efficient technologies used 

in sustainable infrastructure.

• Standards efforts are not 

coordinated and aligned 

cause confusion in the 

marketplace

• Hindered market entry 

• Inconsistency in design, 

operations and maintenance

• Government call out 

existing standards in 

application legislation and 

regulation

• Support private sector in 

relevant standards 

development activities

• Time consuming and 

resource intensive efforts 

to achieve consensus

• International 

harmonization adds more 

complexity and time

• NIST

• DHS

• DoT

• DoE

• CISA

• Others

29
Appetite 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

Inertia

Brownfield 

projects

Barriers addressed #13

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only 30

Security

Old 

Policies

Low 

Awareness

Inadequate 

Infrastructure

Silos

Outdated

Processes

Standards 

and 

interopera

bility

Immature 

Tech

Privacy

Brownfield

The federal government should 

support existing industry standards 

development activities with respect 

to energy efficient technologies used 

in sustainable infrastructure.
Programmatic

National Smart City 

Program Office (11)

Agency Chief Smart 

City Officer (8)

Smart City & 

Infrastructure Extension 

Partnership office (1)

Funding

IoT use in federally 

funded projects (2)

Grants for small –

mid sized cities (6)

Models for 

sustaining 

operations (3)

Energy efficient 

technologies in federally 

funded infrastructure 

projects (13)

Standards

IoT performance 

metrics (10)

Smart city 

reference models 

(5)

Facilitate adoption 

of IoT standards for 

smart cities (7)

IoT data strategy in 

PPD 21 (9)

Support standards in 

sustainable 

infrastructure (13)

Capability

Student loan forgiveness 

to attract talent to cities 

(4)

Recommendations - 5

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only 31
Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only

Justification

Implementation Barriers

Agencies Federal considerations

#4: Student loan forgiveness programs to attract talent to smart city projects

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

• Leverage model used by the 

National Health Science Corps

• Partner with non-profit 

organizations such as FUSE Corps

• Identify key roles/skills needed 

(cyber, analytics, software 

development, etc.)

• 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), 6 (grants for small 

cities)

32
Appetite 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

Inertia

Brownfield 

projects

Barriers addressed

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only 33
Programmatic

National Smart City 

Program Office (11)

Agency Chief Smart 

City Officer (8)

Smart City & 

Infrastructure Extension 

Partnership office (1)

Funding

IoT use in federally 

funded projects (2)

Grants for small –

mid sized cities (6)

Models for 

sustaining 

operations (3)

Energy efficient 

technologies in federally 

funded infrastructure 

projects (13)

Standards

IoT performance 

metrics (10)

Smart city 

reference models 

(5)

Facilitate adoption 

of IoT standards for 

smart cities (7)

IoT data strategy in 

PPD 21 (9)

Support standards in 

sustainable 

infrastructure (13)

Capability

Student loan forgiveness 

to attract talent to cities 

(4)

Recommendations - 6

Draft – In Progress Work for Discussion Only 34
Prioritization

Recommendations

R1 Smart City & Infrastructure Extension Partnership office 

R2 IoT use in federally funded projects 

R3 Models for sustaining operations 

R4 Student loan forgiveness to attract talent to cities 

R5 Smart city reference models

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 

R12 Energy efficient technologies in federally funded projects

R13 Support existing industry standards development for energy efficient technologies

R11

R1 R12R2 R8

R6

R5 R7 R4

R13

R9 R10

R3

HightacImp

Low

Low Implementation Effort High

Draft 35 – In Progress Work for Discussion Only