← We The People Platform Download .docx

PHYSICAL CIVIC INFRASTRUCTURE

Components Substantiation

Transportation Infrastructure

Water and Sewer Systems

Public Spaces

Energy Grid Modernization

Components 2-4 + 6 of 6 in Civic Infrastructure Pillar

Jason Robertson

v1.1 · Created May 5, 2026 · Updated May 5, 2026 for v2.9 (Phase 2)

Ohio · 2026

Sources Baseline. Numerical claims in this document derive from the canonical sources cataloged in 05_Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx, including: ASCE Infrastructure Report Card 2025 (the $1.2 trillion highways and bridges gap, $140 billion transit gap, and additional infrastructure shortfalls); Federal Highway Administration data; FAA airport investment projections; Department of Transportation freight rail data.

Why Physical Civic Infrastructure

Physical Civic Infrastructure is the durable shared physical environment that enables citizens to live, work, and engage with their communities. Roads, water systems, parks, libraries, the electric grid — these are not amenities. They are the substrate on which everything else depends. When they work, they disappear into the background; when they fail, they impose concentrated harm on the citizens least able to absorb it.

This document substantiates four physical components of the Civic Infrastructure pillar: Transportation Infrastructure, Water and Sewer Systems, Public Spaces, and Energy Grid Modernization. Together with Universal Broadband (substantiated in v2.4) and Civic Technology (substantiated separately), these comprise the six components of the Civic Infrastructure pillar established in the v2.3 architectural framing.

The four components share substantial structural similarity: they are physical assets requiring long-term capital investment, they have existing federal funding programs that this pillar coordinates and supplements rather than replaces, they face severe and well-documented investment gaps that current funding does not address, and they each meet the six tests for Civic Infrastructure established in v2.3 (universal need, market inadequacy, federal coordinating role, harm from absence of investment, generational returns, long-lived asset characteristics).

Because of this structural similarity, this document treats them in a consolidated format with depth comparable to the Universal Mental Health Access pillar substantiation — sufficient to establish operational design, integration with existing federal programs, phasing, and honest acknowledgment of open questions, but not the per-pillar treatment that broadband received. The component-by-component treatment is sufficient given the simpler substantive picture (most of these components have well-developed existing federal program scaffolding) and the consolidation is appropriate given the structural similarity.

The Investment Gap Problem

The American Society of Civil Engineers' 2025 Infrastructure Report Card found that the United States needs approximately $9.1 trillion in infrastructure investment between 2024 and 2033 to bring infrastructure to acceptable condition; existing federal, state, local, and private commitments fund approximately $5.45 trillion of that need; the gap is approximately $3.6 trillion. The four components substantiated here represent the federal civic-infrastructure share of closing that gap.

ASCE's category-specific findings:

Category | 10-Year Need | Funded | Gap | Pillar Component
Drinking water | $625B | ~$316B | $309B | Water and Sewer
Wastewater/stormwater | $690B | ~$380B | $310B | Water and Sewer
Energy/electric grid | $1,900B | ~$1,322B | $578B | Energy Grid Modernization
Highways and bridges | $3,200B | ~$2,000B | $1,200B | Transportation
Transit | $340B | ~$200B | $140B | Transportation
Schools/public spaces | $880B | ~$520B | $360B | Public Spaces

These gaps are real, well-documented, and not closing under current policy. The Civic Infrastructure pillar's role is to provide durable federal investment commitment that addresses these gaps proportionally to federal civic-infrastructure responsibility (recognizing that some categories like highways have larger state and local components, while others like the federal grid backbone are predominantly federal).

Component Cost Summary

The architectural framing established cost ranges for each component; this substantiation confirms those ranges based on more detailed operational analysis:

Component | Annual Cost (Full) | Buildout | Notes
Transportation | $80-120B | 20+ years | Above current Highway Trust Fund baseline
Water and Sewer | $40-60B | 15-20 years | Above current state revolving fund baseline
Public Spaces | $22-32B | 10 years | Federal share of library and park funding
Energy Grid Modernization | $50-80B | 20-25 years | Above current FERC and DOE program baseline
Subtotal (4 physical components) | $192-292B |  |

Combined with Universal Broadband ($50B) and Civic Technology ($10-15B), the full Civic Infrastructure pillar cost at full deployment is approximately $252-357B annually — consistent with the architectural framing's pillar-level cost estimate.

Component: Transportation Infrastructure

Transportation infrastructure is the largest physical Civic Infrastructure component by cost, and the one with the most developed existing federal program scaffolding. The component's role is to expand and stabilize existing federal transportation investment to actually close the investment gap that current programs have not closed.

The Current State

Federal transportation funding flows through several major programs: the Highway Trust Fund (~$50B/year, primarily fuel tax revenue with general fund supplements), the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment Grants Program (~$3-4B/year), the Federal Aviation Administration airport improvement programs (~$3-4B/year), Federal Railroad Administration grants (~$2-3B/year), and discretionary programs like RAISE, INFRA, and Mega (~$5-8B/year combined). The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (2021) substantially increased these baselines for a five-year period; absent reauthorization at IIJA-or-higher levels, baseline funding will return to pre-2021 levels in 2026-2027.

Despite these substantial commitments, the investment gap remains. ASCE estimates: $1.2 trillion gap in highways and bridges over 2024-2033, $140 billion gap in transit, plus additional gaps in airports, freight rail, and ports. The cumulative gap is approximately $1.5 trillion over 10 years — approximately $150 billion per year. The Transportation component's $80-120B annual addition addresses approximately 60-80% of this gap; remainder is closed through state and local investment.

Subcomponents

Highway and Bridge Modernization

ASCE: 6.8% of U.S. bridges are in poor condition, 49.1% in fair condition. Average age of bridge assets is 47 years against 50-year design life. Highway pavement condition has declined or stagnated in most states despite IIJA investment. The component invests an additional $40-60B annually in highway and bridge work — federal share of $80-100B annual gap — with priority on bridge replacement, pavement preservation in poor-condition corridors, and resilience hardening for climate-driven stress.

Transit Expansion

U.S. transit ridership remains below pre-2020 levels in most metro areas; transit infrastructure backlog continues to grow. The component invests an additional $15-25B annually in transit — capital expansion in growing metros, fleet modernization (electrification), capital state-of-good-repair across existing systems, and rural transit expansion. This is in addition to FTA's existing Capital Investment Grants Program.

Passenger Rail

U.S. passenger rail outside the Northeast Corridor is structurally underdeveloped relative to comparable countries. The component invests an additional $10-20B annually in passenger rail — Northeast Corridor capital improvements, additional intercity corridors (California, Cascadia, Florida, Texas Triangle, Midwest), and Amtrak fleet renewal. This continues a direction the IIJA initiated; the component provides durable funding rather than five-year commitments.

Freight and Multimodal

U.S. freight rail capacity is straining under demand growth; ports face capacity constraints; multimodal connections (rail-truck, rail-port, port-distribution) are inadequate. The component invests an additional $10-15B annually in freight infrastructure — freight rail capacity expansion, port modernization (in coordination with Maritime Administration), multimodal connection infrastructure.

Operational Design

Transportation infrastructure has the most developed existing federal program scaffolding of any pillar component. The component's operational design is straightforward: stabilize and expand existing programs rather than creating new ones.

Operational principles • Highway Trust Fund stabilization: long-term solvency through revenue mechanisms beyond fuel taxes (vehicle-miles-traveled fees, freight fees) plus general fund supplementation as needed • Federal Transit Administration expansion: Capital Investment Grants Program scaled to actual need, including expanded eligibility for smaller metros • Federal Railroad Administration capacity: Northeast Corridor and other corridor programs scaled to support genuine intercity rail expansion • Discretionary programs (RAISE, INFRA, Mega) at IIJA scale on durable basis rather than five-year reauthorization cycle • State and local matching requirements calibrated to encourage but not constrain state participation • Buy America provisions and prevailing wage requirements continue per existing federal practice

Cost Estimate: $80-120 Billion Annually

Subcomponent | Annual Cost | Notes
Highway and Bridge Modernization | $40-60B | Above current Highway Trust Fund baseline
Transit Expansion | $15-25B | Above current FTA programs
Passenger Rail | $10-20B | Above current Amtrak and FRA programs
Freight and Multimodal | $10-15B | Above current MARAD and freight rail programs
Component Total | $75-120B |

These costs assume continuation of state and local matching at current proportions; reductions in state and local participation would require larger federal share to maintain total investment.

Citizen-Facing Value

The household-level value of transportation infrastructure investment is real but distributes unevenly across geography, commute patterns, and transportation mode. The platform's $80-120 billion annual investment is not itemized as a per-household line item in the citizen-facing tax-comparison documents because the value to any specific household varies too widely for a single averaged figure to be informative. This section provides per-household value estimates that readers can apply to their own circumstances.

Vehicle damage reduction. The American Automobile Association estimates that drivers in states with the worst road conditions incur approximately $600 per year in additional vehicle wear and damage attributable to poor pavement. The TRIP transportation research group estimates a national average of approximately $700-800 per year in road-condition costs per driver. Modernized highway and bridge infrastructure under the platform reduces this exposure substantially. A conservative averaged estimate of $200 per year per household understates the value for households in poor-condition regions and overstates it for households in well-maintained regions; readers can adjust based on their own road conditions.

Transit access value. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that households with effective transit access save $5,000-10,000 per year compared to households dependent on private vehicles for similar trip patterns. Transit expansion under the platform creates this value where deployment occurs but produces zero direct savings for households outside transit-served areas. The averaged figure across all households dramatically understates value for households who would gain transit access and overstates it for households who already have or do not need it. For a household that gains transit access where none existed, $5,000-10,000 in annual savings is the defensible range.

Time-in-traffic reduction. The Department of Transportation estimates that congestion in major metropolitan areas costs the average commuter 50-80 hours per year in lost time. Modernized highway and transit corridors reduce this loss in the regions where investment occurs. The platform does not assign a dollar value to this time because monetizing it requires assumptions about wage rates that vary across households; readers can value their own time at whatever rate they consider appropriate. Households in metropolitan corridors with significant congestion are the primary beneficiaries; households in low-traffic regions see minimal change.

Safety value. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration links structurally deficient bridges and poor pavement to measurable increases in serious crashes. Eliminating the structurally deficient bridge backlog (currently approximately twenty percent of American bridges) reduces crash exposure on those routes. Per-household value depends on household exposure to specific deficient infrastructure and is not meaningfully averaged across the national population.

Honest framing. Transportation infrastructure value cannot be reduced to a single per-household figure. The platform commits to the investment because the aggregate national value substantially exceeds the cost; the household-level distribution is a separate question that any specific reader should resolve by reference to their own geography and travel patterns. The four threads above (vehicle damage, transit access, time recovered, safety) cover the bulk of the household-level value; readers can add up whichever apply to their situation.

Open Questions

Highway Trust Fund revenue mechanism. Fuel tax revenue is structurally declining as electric vehicle adoption increases and fuel efficiency improves. The component requires alternative revenue mechanisms (vehicle-miles-traveled, weight-mile, congestion charging); these are politically contested and operationally complex. The substantiation does not settle which mechanism.

High-speed rail scope. Whether the component includes high-speed rail (>200 mph) corridor development beyond the Northeast Corridor depends on cost trade-offs against conventional rail and highway investment. The substantiation includes high-speed rail as one option in passenger rail subcomponent but does not specify which corridors.

Climate adaptation versus mitigation. Transportation infrastructure investment intersects with climate policy in ways the substantiation does not fully unpack. Investment in highway modernization extends fossil-fuel transportation infrastructure; investment in transit and rail enables alternatives. The component takes the position that the platform invests in both, with priorities calibrated by independent climate policy decisions.

Component: Water and Sewer Systems

Water and sewer infrastructure is the most directly health-affecting physical Civic Infrastructure. Aging water systems threaten public health through lead exposure, contamination, and supply disruption; aging sewer systems threaten public health and environmental quality through combined sewer overflows and inadequate wastewater treatment. The component addresses long-deferred maintenance and modernization across both.

The Current State

EPA's 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment found $625 billion in drinking water infrastructure needs over 20 years — approximately $31 billion annually. Wastewater needs are similar in scale; the EPA's most recent Clean Watersheds Needs Survey identified approximately $271 billion in capital needs over 20 years (with limited update since), and ASCE's 2025 estimate is higher. Combined drinking water and wastewater needs exceed $50 billion annually.

Federal funding has been substantial but insufficient. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) together provide approximately $4-5 billion annually in federal capitalization grants to state revolving fund programs. The IIJA provided $30+ billion over five years, including $15 billion specifically for lead service line replacement. WIFIA program supports approximately $50-75 billion per year in low-cost loans. Total federal water infrastructure investment is approximately $10-15 billion annually — well below the $50+ billion need.

Specific high-priority issues:

Critical water infrastructure issues • Lead service lines: EPA's revised estimate of approximately 4 million lead service lines remaining (down from earlier 9 million estimate). At ~$4,700 average per replacement, ~$19 billion total cost. EPA's 2024 Lead and Copper Rule Improvements require replacement within 10 years; existing federal funding covers approximately half the cost. • Combined sewer overflows: ~860 communities have combined sewer systems that discharge raw sewage during rainfall. EPA estimates ~$48 billion in capital needs to address. • Aging water mains: Approximately 240,000 water main breaks annually; aging cast iron and asbestos-cement mains require systematic replacement. • Source water protection and PFAS: PFAS treatment infrastructure required across thousands of water systems; agricultural runoff and source water protection require substantial additional investment. • Rural and tribal systems: Many small rural and tribal water systems lack the technical and financial capacity to maintain compliance with safe drinking water standards; require dedicated technical and capital assistance.

Subcomponents

Lead Service Line Replacement

EPA's 2024 Lead and Copper Rule Improvements require complete lead service line replacement within 10 years. The cost (~$19 billion total over 10 years, ~$2 billion annually) is partially covered by existing IIJA funding and DWSRF capacity. The component provides additional federal funding ($1-2 billion annually beyond current federal investment) to ensure that the 10-year deadline is actually met across all systems including those serving disadvantaged communities.

Combined Sewer Overflow Elimination

CSO communities are concentrated in the older industrial regions (Northeast, Midwest, mid-Atlantic). The component invests $4-6 billion annually toward CSO elimination, prioritizing communities where overflow events are most frequent and most environmentally damaging. This is in addition to existing CWSRF capacity.

Aging Water and Sewer System Modernization

The bulk of the water and sewer infrastructure investment gap is in unsexy but critical work: replacing aging water mains, upgrading sewer systems beyond CSO areas, modernizing treatment facilities. The component invests $25-40 billion annually in this systematic modernization, channeled primarily through expanded DWSRF and CWSRF capacity. State revolving fund expansion preserves state authority over project selection while providing federal capital scale.

Rural and Tribal Water Systems

Small rural and tribal water systems require dedicated capacity-building support beyond the standard SRF model. The component invests $3-5 billion annually in dedicated rural and tribal programs, including technical assistance, capital grants (rather than loans), and consolidated regional water authority development where appropriate.

Source Water Protection and Emerging Contaminants

PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), agricultural runoff, and other emerging contaminants require treatment infrastructure investment beyond traditional water infrastructure. The component invests $5-7 billion annually in source water protection, PFAS treatment infrastructure, and agricultural conservation programs that protect drinking water sources.

Operational Design

Water and sewer infrastructure operates through state revolving fund (SRF) programs administered by state agencies with federal capitalization. The component preserves this structure while expanding federal capitalization substantially:

Operational principles • Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds: federal capitalization expanded from current ~$4B/year combined to approximately $25-35B/year • Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA): expanded loan authority for large projects (>$20M) • Disadvantaged community grants and forgivable loans: increased from current 49% mandate to 60-70% of SRF capacity, enabling truly disadvantaged communities to access water infrastructure investment without unsustainable rate increases • Lead service line replacement: dedicated funding stream beyond general SRF capacity until full replacement complete • Rural and tribal program: dedicated capacity-building program separate from SRF, focused on small system technical assistance and consolidation • Source water protection: expanded EPA program coordinating with USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service for agricultural runoff reduction

Cost Estimate: $40-60 Billion Annually

Subcomponent | Annual Cost | Notes
Lead Service Line Replacement | $1-2B | Above current federal LSLR funding
Combined Sewer Overflow Elimination | $4-6B | Above current CWSRF capacity
Aging Water and Sewer Modernization | $25-40B | Expanded SRF capacity
Rural and Tribal Water Systems | $3-5B | Dedicated programs
Source Water Protection and Emerging Contaminants | $5-7B | PFAS, agricultural runoff
Component Total | $38-60B |

Citizen-Facing Value

Water and sewer infrastructure value distributes more unevenly across households than perhaps any other Civic Infrastructure component. Most American households experience reliable, safe water service at typical American costs (approximately $815 per year in combined water and sewer charges according to the American Water Works Association). For these households, the platform's investment produces structural risk reduction without measurable change in day-to-day experience. For households exposed to specific water and sewer system failures, the platform's investment produces value ranging into tens of thousands of dollars per year.

Lead exposure reduction. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that approximately nine million American homes still receive water through lead service lines. The American Academy of Pediatrics estimates the lifetime cost of childhood lead exposure at $50,000-150,000 per affected child, accounting for the documented effects on cognitive development, lifetime earnings, and healthcare costs. The platform's commitment to lead service line replacement eliminates this exposure for affected households. For households without lead service lines, the value is zero. For households with lead service lines, particularly those with young children, the value is substantial. The platform does not list this as a per-household line item because the average across all households (approximately $50-100 per household per year if amortized across the affected population) misleads in both directions: it overstates value for the unaffected majority and dramatically understates value for the affected minority.

Service disruption reduction. Aging water and sewer infrastructure produces boil-water advisories, service interruptions, and water-quality contamination events affecting an estimated five to ten million American households per year. The direct cost to affected households (bottled water purchases, alternative arrangements, in some cases plumbing damage) typically ranges from $50 to several hundred dollars per affected event. Reduced service disruption under the platform produces modest averaged savings (~$50-100 per household per year) but substantially larger savings for households in regions with frequently disrupted service.

Combined sewer overflow elimination. Older American cities (approximately 700 communities nationally) have combined sewer systems that release untreated wastewater into waterways during heavy rain events. Eliminating these overflows produces public-health value (reduced waterborne illness exposure for downstream communities) and recreation value (waterways become usable for recreation that contamination currently prevents). Per-household value depends on whether the household uses affected waterways or lives in affected communities; not meaningfully averaged.

Honest framing. Water and sewer infrastructure value is real but heavily concentrated. The platform's $40-60 billion annual investment is justified by the aggregate value to affected populations rather than by averaged per-household savings. Readers should evaluate the platform's commitment by whether they live in or near communities with lead service lines, frequent water-quality issues, or combined sewer overflow problems; for households exposed to those issues, the platform's value is substantial.

Open Questions

Lead pipe replacement timing. EPA's 10-year deadline (2034) is achievable with sufficient funding but requires sustained capacity. The substantiation funds the timeline; whether implementation actually meets it depends on workforce capacity, supply chain (copper pipe availability), and state program capacity.

Combined sewer overflow remediation prioritization. Communities with combined sewers face large capital requirements (St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit each have $1B+ programs). Prioritization across communities is contested; the substantiation does not specify which communities are funded first.

Agricultural runoff scope. Source water protection from agricultural runoff requires changes to agricultural practice that the substantiation supports financially but cannot mandate. Coordination with USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) conservation programs is essential but not fully specified.

Water utility privatization concerns. Some water systems are privatized; federal funding to publicly-owned systems doesn't directly address privatized system needs. The substantiation takes the position that federal funding flows primarily to publicly-owned systems, with privatized systems eligible only for specific subsets (lead service line replacement, regulatory compliance) where public health interest is direct.

Component: Public Spaces

Public spaces are the shared physical environment of civic life: parks, libraries, community centers, plazas, playgrounds. Unlike water or transportation infrastructure, public spaces don't have a single federal program scaffolding; federal investment is fragmented across multiple programs and is dwarfed by state and local funding. The component's role is to provide a federal floor that prevents systematic under-investment in disadvantaged communities.

The Current State

Federal investment in public spaces is structurally limited. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) provides approximately $900 million annually for federal and state parks; the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) provides approximately $300 million annually for libraries and museums; Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) provide approximately $3.3 billion annually that can be used for community facilities; HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) Community Facilities Programs and various smaller programs add limited additional capacity. Total federal public spaces investment is approximately $5-7 billion annually.

State and local public spaces investment varies enormously by community wealth. Wealthy suburbs maintain extensive park systems with full-time recreation departments; rural communities and disinvested urban neighborhoods often lack functional public space at all. Library systems range from extensive (Chicago Public Library, New York Public Library, Seattle Public Library) to barely functional (many rural and small-town systems). This variation is not equity-neutral; it directly tracks community wealth and racial composition.

The IMLS — the federal agency providing library and museum support — has been targeted for elimination by multiple administrations, with funding subject to recurring appropriations battles. Library closures and reduced hours have been recurring news in disinvested communities. The federal floor that protects libraries against this dynamic is structurally fragile.

Subcomponents

Library System Federal Floor

Libraries are essential Civic Infrastructure: they provide internet access (especially for citizens without home broadband), assist with government services navigation, support educational programs, and serve as community gathering spaces. The component establishes a federal floor for library funding that prevents systematic disinvestment. Federal share of library funding rises from approximately 5% (current) to approximately 15-20% (proposed), with funding allocated through formula based on community-wealth-adjusted need.

Operationally: IMLS funding expands from ~$300M to ~$3-5B annually, with new authority to make direct grants to library systems serving disadvantaged communities. The 'library backstop' principle: any library system operating below federal-defined basic service standard (open hours, collection size, internet access, programming) is eligible for federal supplementation regardless of state and local political dynamics.

Park System Investment

Federal park investment through Land and Water Conservation Fund and similar programs has been chronically inadequate. The component invests $8-12 billion annually in park systems — federal lands maintenance backlog (estimated $20+ billion in National Park Service alone), state and local park grants, urban park development in disadvantaged communities (where access to parks correlates with health and education outcomes).

Community Centers and Civic Buildings

Community centers — senior centers, youth centers, recreation centers, after-school programs — are operationally essential but federally under-supported. The component invests $4-6 billion annually in community center development and operations support, particularly in disadvantaged communities where existing infrastructure is inadequate.

Public Plazas and Pedestrian Spaces

Walkable public spaces — plazas, pedestrian streets, public squares — are correlated with civic engagement, public health, and economic activity. The component invests $2-4 billion annually in pedestrian and public space infrastructure, often in coordination with transportation investment (where transit-oriented development creates opportunities for public space integration).

Cultural Infrastructure

Cultural infrastructure — public art, performance venues, cultural programming — is the smallest subcomponent but still meaningful. The component invests $2-3 billion annually in cultural infrastructure, including National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities expansion, public art commissioning, and community cultural programming.

Operational Design

Operational principles • Federal funding is supplemental to state and local funding, with formula allocation that prevents systematic disinvestment in poor communities • Library backstop: any library system below basic service standard receives federal supplementation • Federal-state-local matching: typical 50/30/20 split (federal/state/local), with greater federal share for disadvantaged communities • Maintenance and operations support: not just capital construction but ongoing operations, particularly for facilities serving disadvantaged communities • Community-defined needs: federal programs respond to community-articulated needs rather than imposing federal priorities; local communities define what public spaces matter most • Workforce: public spaces investment includes workforce (librarians, recreation staff, programming staff) not just physical infrastructure

Cost Estimate: $22-32 Billion Annually

Subcomponent | Annual Cost | Notes
Library System Federal Floor | $3-5B | Above current IMLS
Park System Investment | $8-12B | Above current LWCF and NPS
Community Centers and Civic Buildings | $4-6B | New federal investment
Public Plazas and Pedestrian Spaces | $2-4B | New federal investment
Cultural Infrastructure | $2-3B | Above current NEA, NEH, IMLS
Component Total | $19-30B |

Citizen-Facing Value

Public spaces produce value that is heavily concentrated among households who use them. For library users, park visitors, and community center participants, public spaces provide services equivalent to thousands of dollars per year in private alternatives. For households who do not use public spaces, the platform's $22-32 billion annual investment produces minimal direct value. The averaged figure across all households obscures both ends of this distribution.

Library value. The American Library Association estimates that the average library user receives approximately $2,500-3,000 per year in services they would otherwise pay for: book purchases avoided, online database access, computing and internet access, programming and educational events, document services, and meeting space. Approximately half of American households use libraries in any given year. For library-using households, the platform's library investment maintains and expands services that already provide substantial value. For non-library-using households, the value is structural rather than directly experienced.

Critically, library value concentrates among the lowest-income households. Households without home computing or internet access depend on libraries for digital access in ways that wealthier households do not. Households that cannot afford books, educational materials, or paid programming receive equivalent services through libraries at no cost. The platform's commitment to libraries as Civic Infrastructure recognizes that libraries are the most universally accessible public resource for households whose private alternatives are limited or nonexistent.

Park and community center value. The National Recreation and Park Association estimates that park access correlates with $2,000-4,000 per year in health-equivalent value through increased physical activity, reduced stress, and community connection. Community centers provide similar value for households who participate in their programming. As with libraries, these benefits concentrate among households whose alternatives are limited.

Cultural infrastructure value. Public art, public museums, and cultural programming produce value that is genuinely difficult to monetize. For households who engage with cultural infrastructure, the value is real but not easily reduced to a dollar figure. The platform's investment in cultural infrastructure reflects a values judgment that accessible culture is part of what citizens are entitled to expect from Civic Infrastructure.

Honest framing. Public spaces value is highly concentrated among users and among lower-income households. The platform does not list a per-household figure in the citizen-facing tax-comparison documents because the average dramatically understates user value (the half of households who use libraries) and overstates non-user value (the half who do not). For library-using households, particularly those without private alternatives, the value is several thousand dollars per year; for households with full private access to comparable resources, the value is the structural availability of public alternatives even if those alternatives are not currently used.

Open Questions

Federal versus state versus local funding share. The architectural framing identified this as an open question. The substantiation takes the position that federal share rises from ~5% to ~15-20% — enough to provide meaningful floor without displacing state and local responsibility. Whether this is the right balance is contestable.

Library staffing models. Library backstop principle requires defining what 'basic service standard' means; staffing levels are central. The substantiation does not fully specify staffing models; this requires implementation work.

Park system metropolitan versus rural. Park investment can prioritize urban parks (where access disparity is greatest) or rural park expansion (where capacity is lower). The substantiation supports both but doesn't specify priorities.

Cultural infrastructure scope. What counts as 'cultural infrastructure' is contested. The substantiation takes a relatively expansive view (including community programming, public art, performance venues) but doesn't specify program eligibility in detail.

Component: Energy Grid Modernization

Energy grid modernization is the most technically complex Civic Infrastructure component and the one most entangled with energy generation policy that this platform does not directly address. The component focuses specifically on transmission and distribution infrastructure — the wires, transformers, and substations that move electricity — leaving generation policy to be addressed elsewhere.

The Current State

U.S. electric grid infrastructure is severely aged: 70% of power transformers are 25+ years old, 60% of circuit breakers are 30+ years old, 70% of transmission lines are 25+ years old. ASCE estimates $1.9 trillion in grid investment needs over 2024-2033 — approximately $190 billion annually. Of this, approximately $578 billion is the unfunded gap. Current utility spending on transmission and distribution is approximately $78 billion annually (2023: $27B transmission + $51B distribution); IIJA allocated $73 billion over five years for grid modernization.

The investment gap is driven by three forces:

Drivers of grid investment need • Demand growth: electricity demand is rising sharply after two decades of stagnation. AI data centers consume as much electricity as small cities; electric vehicle adoption requires distribution capacity expansion; electrification of buildings (heat pumps replacing gas heating) shifts seasonal load patterns • Energy transition: shift from large centralized fossil fuel generation to distributed renewable generation requires fundamentally different grid architecture. Existing grid was designed for one-way power flow from large plants to consumers; renewable integration requires bidirectional flow with distributed generation • Resilience requirements: extreme weather events impose growing reliability stress. Hurricanes, wildfires, ice storms, and heat waves all stress grid infrastructure that wasn't designed for current weather patterns. Hardening (undergrounding, fire-resistant materials, more durable poles) is operationally necessary • Aging infrastructure: a substantial share of grid infrastructure is approaching or past design life. Replacement is required regardless of demand growth or energy transition; the other drivers add to baseline replacement need

The component's role: federal investment in grid modernization that addresses the unfunded gap, focused on transmission and distribution infrastructure rather than generation.

Subcomponents

Transmission Capacity Expansion

Inter-regional transmission capacity is structurally inadequate. Renewable resources (wind in the Plains, solar in the Southwest) are geographically separated from load centers; transmission expansion is required to enable renewable energy market expansion. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order 1920 (2024) provides regulatory framework for inter-regional planning; the component provides federal investment that supports transmission projects identified through that framework.

Investment: $20-30 billion annually in transmission expansion, focused on inter-regional capacity. This is in addition to utility-funded transmission investment; federal investment specifically targets transmission projects with regional or national rather than utility-specific value.

Distribution System Modernization

Distribution system modernization — the wires that connect homes and businesses to the grid — enables distributed energy resources, electric vehicle charging, and demand response. Investment includes: smart grid technology (sensors, communication infrastructure), distribution automation (self-healing grid capability), interconnection infrastructure (enabling rooftop solar, battery storage, EV charging), and capacity expansion (handling rising peak loads).

Investment: $15-25 billion annually in distribution system modernization, primarily through utility cost-sharing programs that leverage utility ratepayer investment with federal supplementation for projects with broader public benefit.

Resilience Hardening

Grid infrastructure must be hardened against increasingly severe weather. Investments include: undergrounding overhead lines in fire-prone areas, replacing wood poles with fire-resistant or stronger materials, hardening substations against flooding, deploying microgrids for critical facilities (hospitals, emergency services). The pattern: not protecting all infrastructure equally, but protecting the most-critical infrastructure most thoroughly.

Investment: $10-15 billion annually in resilience hardening, prioritized by climate vulnerability assessment and critical-infrastructure designation.

Rural and Tribal Grid Reliability

Rural electric cooperatives and tribal electric authorities serve approximately 13% of U.S. population across 56% of the U.S. land area. Their grid infrastructure is often less modernized and less resilient than investor-owned utility infrastructure. The component provides dedicated investment in rural and tribal grid: capacity expansion, modernization, and resilience hardening.

Investment: $5-10 billion annually in rural and tribal grid investment, primarily through expanded Rural Utilities Service capacity and dedicated tribal energy programs.

Operational Design

Energy grid operates under complex multi-level regulatory frameworks: FERC regulates inter-state transmission; state public utility commissions regulate intra-state distribution; Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs) coordinate regional grid operations; rural electric cooperatives have separate governance. The component preserves this regulatory structure while providing federal investment that fits within it:

Operational principles • Investment supplements rather than replaces utility ratepayer investment. Federal share provides public benefit beyond what individual utility ratepayers should bear • FERC Order 1920 transmission planning framework: federal investment supports inter-regional transmission projects identified through this framework • Department of Energy grid modernization programs: expanded capacity for distribution system modernization grants • Rural Utilities Service: expanded capacity for rural electric cooperative investment • Federal-state coordination: investment respects state public utility commission authority over distribution; federal investment focuses on transmission, on programs requiring federal scale, and on disadvantaged community investment that state PUCs may not adequately address • Cybersecurity: grid cybersecurity is treated as critical national infrastructure; federal investment includes cybersecurity in every grid investment component

Cost Estimate: $50-80 Billion Annually

Subcomponent | Annual Cost | Notes
Transmission Capacity Expansion | $20-30B | Inter-regional, FERC-coordinated
Distribution System Modernization | $15-25B | Utility cost-sharing
Resilience Hardening | $10-15B | Climate-driven priorities
Rural and Tribal Grid | $5-10B | Dedicated programs
Component Total | $50-80B |

Citizen-Facing Value

Energy grid modernization produces modest averaged per-household value with substantial variation by geographic exposure to grid problems. The Department of Energy estimates that the average American household experiences approximately six hours of grid outages per year, with rural households experiencing twelve to eighteen hours. Households in regions with frequent severe weather or outdated grid infrastructure experience substantially more. The platform's $50-80 billion annual investment in grid modernization reduces this exposure across all American households, with the largest improvements in the most affected regions.

Outage cost reduction. The National Institute of Standards and Technology estimates that the average American household incurs approximately $200-400 per year in costs attributable to grid outages: spoiled food, lost work time for hourly workers, home heating and cooling system stress, and minor equipment damage. Grid modernization reduces this exposure. A conservative averaged estimate of $50-150 per household per year in reduced outage costs reflects the typical case but substantially understates value for households in outage-prone regions.

Critical equipment dependence. Households with medical equipment that requires reliable electricity (oxygen concentrators, dialysis equipment, refrigerated medications, mobility devices) face substantially higher costs from outages, including potential health emergencies. Households with elderly or disabled members are disproportionately affected. The platform's grid modernization produces concentrated value for these households that the averaged figure does not capture.

Work-from-home and home business viability. The post-2020 shift toward remote and hybrid work has made household electricity reliability newly critical for income generation. Outages that would have been minor inconveniences a decade ago now produce direct income loss for an estimated thirty to forty percent of working households. Grid modernization preserves this income generation capacity. Per-household value depends on the household's work arrangement and the specific reliability of their local grid.

Resilience value during extreme weather. The Department of Energy reports that weather-related outages have grown approximately sixty-seven percent since 2000. Extended outages following severe weather impose costs ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars per household in affected areas, with additional costs from displacement when outages exceed several days. Resilience hardening under the platform reduces this exposure, producing the largest value for households in regions exposed to hurricanes, ice storms, wildfires, and similar grid stressors.

Honest framing. Grid modernization value averages to perhaps $50-150 per household per year in reduced outage costs, with substantially larger value concentrated among households in outage-prone regions, households with critical equipment dependence, and households whose income generation depends on reliable electricity. The platform does not list this as a per-household line item because the averaged figure misleads for the populations the investment most directly benefits. The aggregate national value substantially exceeds the cost; the household-level distribution depends on circumstances that vary widely.

Open Questions

Integration with energy generation policy. Grid modernization is operationally entangled with generation policy that the platform does not directly address. The component takes generation policy as exogenous; if generation policy changes substantially, grid investment priorities change. Coordination is required but is outside the component's scope.

Interstate transmission siting authority. Inter-regional transmission requires siting across multiple state jurisdictions. Existing federal authority is limited; expansion is politically contested. The component supports expanded federal siting authority for projects with regional or national value but acknowledges that this authority does not fully exist today.

Distributed energy resources interconnection cost allocation. Who pays for the distribution system upgrades that enable rooftop solar, battery storage, and electric vehicle charging? Existing cost allocation is contested between utilities, ratepayers, and DER customers. The component provides federal investment that reduces but doesn't eliminate this allocation tension.

Cybersecurity threat environment. Grid cybersecurity is rapidly evolving; investment must keep pace with threats that are themselves evolving. The substantiation includes substantial cybersecurity investment but cannot guarantee adequacy against future threats.

Cross-Component Coordination

Civic infrastructure components are not independent. Investment in one component creates demands and opportunities in others; coordination across components is operationally essential.

Coordination Patterns

Transportation and Energy Grid

Electric vehicle adoption requires both transportation investment (highway and roadside infrastructure for charging) and grid investment (distribution capacity for charging loads). Coordination between Federal Highway Administration's Charging and Fueling Infrastructure program and Department of Energy grid modernization is essential. The components support but don't fully specify this coordination.

Water Systems and Energy

Water and wastewater treatment is energy-intensive (approximately 4% of U.S. electricity consumption). Modernization of water systems frequently includes energy efficiency investment that affects grid load patterns. Coordination through joint EPA-DOE programs is supported.

Public Spaces and Transportation

Transit-oriented development creates opportunities for public space integration around transit stations; pedestrian and plaza infrastructure complements transit investment. Coordination between Federal Transit Administration and HUD Community Development programs is supported.

Public Spaces and Civic Technology

Libraries are the front line of Civic Technology access for citizens without home broadband or sufficient digital literacy. Coordination between Civic Technology subcomponent (specifically Federal Civic Communication Platform's library partnership) and Public Spaces subcomponent (library system federal floor) is operationally tight; both investments support the same citizens accessing the same physical and digital infrastructure.

Energy Grid and Disaster Response

Grid resilience hardening creates capacity for disaster response (hospitals, emergency operations, communications); coordination with Federal Emergency Management Agency on critical infrastructure designation is supported.

Phasing Across Components

Physical Civic Infrastructure components have substantially different timelines and urgencies. The phasing across components matches the broader Civic Infrastructure pillar phasing established in v2.3.

Phase 1: Foundation (Years 1-5)

Phase 1 deliverables across physical components • Transportation: stabilization of IIJA investment levels on durable basis; Highway Trust Fund revenue mechanism transition; baseline transit and rail capital programs • Water and Sewer: complete lead service line replacement program scaling; CSO elimination program initiation; rural and tribal water program expansion • Public Spaces: library backstop establishment; park system maintenance backlog reduction; community center program initiation • Energy Grid: FERC Order 1920 transmission planning implementation; distribution modernization program scaling; resilience hardening priority projects

Phase 2: Build-Out (Years 6-15)

Phase 2 deliverables across physical components • Transportation: passenger rail corridor development beyond Northeast Corridor; freight rail capacity expansion; transit expansion in non-traditional metros • Water and Sewer: aging water main systematic replacement; combined sewer overflow elimination program completion in priority communities; PFAS treatment infrastructure • Public Spaces: park system expansion in disadvantaged communities; community center deployment in underserved areas; cultural infrastructure investment • Energy Grid: full distribution modernization for distributed energy resources; transmission capacity expansion enabling regional renewable energy markets; resilience hardening across all priority infrastructure

Phase 3: Steady State (Years 16+)

Phase 3 characteristics • Most components reach maintenance-and-replacement steady state • Investment focused on long-horizon transformation: high-speed rail corridors, full grid modernization, climate adaptation infrastructure • Integration with broader policy evolution: transportation evolves with vehicle electrification; grid evolves with generation mix; water evolves with climate-driven changes in supply • Continuous capability improvement rather than gap-closing investment

Honest Acknowledgments

This consolidated substantiation provides operational design and cost estimation at the level needed to confirm the v2.3 architectural framing's component cost ranges. It does not provide the per-component depth that broadband and Civic Technology received — each of these four components could merit its own full substantiation document at the level of broadband's. Specific limitations:

What This Substantiation Doesn't Settle

Per-component implementation specifics. Each component would benefit from per-component implementation playbook — how lead service line replacement is operationally scheduled across thousands of utilities, how transmission projects are prioritized within FERC Order 1920 framework, how library backstop standards are operationally defined. These implementation specifics are outside the substantiation's scope.

Federal-state-local share specifics. All four components involve federal-state-local coordination; the substantiation establishes general principles but doesn't specify precise federal-state-local funding shares for every program. These are matters for legislative design and program-specific rule-making.

Workforce capacity. All four components require substantial workforce capacity — construction trades for transportation and water, technical specialists for grid modernization, librarians and recreation staff for public spaces. Whether the workforce is available to support the investment scale is a real question; the substantiation assumes workforce can be developed but doesn't specify how.

Inflation and cost escalation. Infrastructure costs have escalated faster than general inflation in recent years (construction cost inflation 2020-2025 has been substantially above CPI). The cost estimates assume normalization over the buildout period; if cost escalation continues, actual costs will exceed estimates.

Climate-driven cost evolution. Climate change affects infrastructure costs in ways that are hard to predict. Resilience requirements rise; some assets become non-viable in their current locations; some new requirements emerge. The substantiation includes resilience investment but cannot fully predict climate-driven cost evolution.

What This Substantiation Doesn't Address

Energy generation policy. Grid modernization is entangled with generation policy that the platform does not address. The component supports grid infrastructure that can serve any generation mix; specific generation policy is outside the platform's scope.

State and local public spaces. The component provides federal floor for public spaces but doesn't direct state and local public spaces investment. State and local public spaces dynamics are outside the component's scope.

Defense transportation infrastructure. Strategic Petroleum Reserve infrastructure, military base transportation, and similar defense-related transportation infrastructure operate under different authorities than civilian transportation. The component focuses on civilian transportation.

Specific construction project selection. The component does not specify which highway projects, which water systems, which parks receive investment first. These are project-selection questions for federal program implementation, state revolving fund administration, and competitive grant programs.

What Could Go Wrong

Workforce shortfall. Construction trades, water utility operators, grid technicians, and library staff are all in tight labor markets. If workforce capacity does not scale with investment, deployment will be slower and more expensive than estimated. Mitigation: workforce development investment as part of each component, apprenticeship programs, immigration policy that supports infrastructure workforce.

Cost escalation. Construction cost inflation has exceeded general inflation for several years. If escalation continues, actual costs will exceed estimates. Mitigation: durable funding commitments that provide construction industry confidence to invest in capacity, reducing escalation pressure.

State and local capacity. Federal investment depends on state and local capacity to plan, contract, and deliver. State revolving fund programs vary in capacity; some states have well-functioning programs and some don't. Mitigation: technical assistance, capacity-building investment, federal authority to bypass non-functioning state programs in exceptional cases.

Climate-driven asset stranding. Some infrastructure investment may be stranded by climate change — highways in flood zones that become non-viable, water systems in regions facing supply collapse. Mitigation: climate-adapted planning, retreat pathways for non-viable assets, recognition that some current investment may need to be replaced rather than maintained.

Political reversal. Like all multi-decade infrastructure commitments, the component depends on political durability. A future administration could de-prioritize, defund, or restructure components. Mitigation: statutory funding mechanisms, infrastructure trust funds, multi-year contracts that survive administration changes.

The Honest Bottom Line

Physical Civic Infrastructure components are operationally well-understood: existing federal program scaffolding (Highway Trust Fund, state revolving funds, IMLS, FERC, DOE) provides the institutional foundation. The investment gap is severe and well-documented; the cost ranges are bounded. The components are individually feasible and collectively essential.

What's missing is durable federal commitment at the scale the gap requires. Existing federal investment is approximately one-third to one-half of what these components require; the difference is approximately $200 billion annually across the four components. This is substantial but bounded — approximately 0.7% of GDP, well within historical precedent for federal Civic Infrastructure investment. The Sovereign Fund's eventual scale (60-70% coverage of platform commitments) makes this scale of investment fiscally sustainable.

The four physical components, together with Universal Broadband (v2.4) and Civic Technology, complete the Civic Infrastructure pillar. The pillar is now fully substantiated at the level needed to defend its commitments and operate within the broader platform framework.

“Physical Civic Infrastructure components are operationally well-understood. What's missing is durable federal commitment at the scale the gap requires. The components are individually feasible and collectively essential.”

Jason Robertson

Ohio, May 5, 2026