Government Spectrum Valuation Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 27, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to quantify the commercial opportunity cost of federal spectrum holdings, potentially paving the way for future reallocation to commercial wireless services, while requiring federal agencies to account for this value publicly.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to estimate the commercial value of electromagnetic spectrum currently assigned to federal entities. These valuations, covering frequencies between 3 kilohertz and 95 gigahertz, must be conducted on a staggered schedule every three years and incorporate dynamic scoring methodologies. Federal agencies will then be required to report these estimated spectrum values in their annual budget submissions and financial statements.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill will promote greater transparency and efficiency in the use of a critical national resource. By valuing federal spectrum holdings based on their highest potential commercial use, the government can identify underutilized bands, foster innovation, and potentially generate significant revenue through reallocation or auction, ultimately benefiting the economy and consumers through improved wireless services.
Opponents contend
Opponents or skeptics might contend that while transparency is valuable, a valuation based solely on commercial potential risks undervaluing the critical public safety, national security, scientific research, and other governmental missions that federal spectrum supports. They may also raise concerns about the administrative burden and cost of conducting complex dynamic valuations, as well as the potential for inter-agency conflict over spectrum access if commercial value becomes the primary metric for allocation decisions.
The bill is very short and easy to read, allowing ample time for a thorough evaluation of its implications.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the 'Government Spectrum Valuation Act.' This is the common name by which the bill would be known and referenced if enacted into law.
Supporters argue
A clear and concise short title makes legislation easier to refer to and understand in public discourse and legislative processes.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the naming of a bill.
Tradeoffs
None inherent in this provision.
Section 2(a), new Section 105(b)
Mandatory Spectrum Valuation by NTIA
This provision requires the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), in collaboration with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to estimate the commercial value of electromagnetic spectrum bands between 3 kilohertz and 95 gigahertz that are currently assigned to federal entities. This valuation is a recurring requirement, not a one-time assessment.
Section 2(a), new Section 105(c)
Staggered Valuation Schedule
This section outlines a staggered schedule for NTIA to conduct the spectrum valuations. Different frequency bands will be valued at different intervals, with the first set (3 kHz to 33 GHz) due within one year, the second set (33 GHz to 66 GHz) within two years, and the third set (66 GHz to 95 GHz) within three years. All valuations are to be repeated every three years thereafter.
Section 2(a), new Section 105(d)
Basis for Valuation and Disclosure Requirements
This provision specifies that spectrum value estimates must be based on the 'highest potential value' if the spectrum were reallocated for commercial wireless services. It allows NTIA to consider commercial needs while preserving federal mission requirements and mandates the use of dynamic scoring methodology 'to the greatest extent practicable.' It also requires public disclosure of the valuation methodology, with exceptions for classified, law enforcement-sensitive, or proprietary information, which would be provided to Congress in a classified annex.
Section 2(a), new Section 105(e)
Federal Agency Reporting of Spectrum Value
This section mandates that any federal entity assigned or allocated electromagnetic spectrum within the covered band must report the most recently estimated value of that spectrum. This reporting must occur in the entity's budget submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for inclusion in the President's budget, and in the entity's annual financial statement.
The definition of 'Federal entity' refers to the meaning given in section 113(l) of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act.
Section 2(a), new Section 105(a)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing definitions in the U.S. Code.
Case for: Using existing definitions ensures legal consistency and avoids creating conflicting interpretations of what constitutes a 'Federal entity' across different statutes.
Case against: Requires a reader to consult external legal text to fully understand the scope of entities covered by the bill, potentially obscuring its full reach.
Estimated impact: Ensures all federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 923(l)) are subject to the valuation and reporting requirements.
The NTIA is required to incorporate 'dynamic scoring methodology' into the value estimate 'to the greatest extent practicable'.
Section 2(a), new Section 105(d)(3)
Why it matters:The term 'dynamic scoring' is a specific economic methodology, and its inclusion here is a technical detail about how the valuation should be performed, rather than a headline policy change.
Case for: Proponents argue that dynamic scoring provides a more comprehensive and realistic economic assessment by accounting for behavioral responses and broader economic impacts, leading to a more accurate valuation of spectrum's commercial potential.
Case against: Critics may argue that dynamic scoring is more complex, resource-intensive, and subject to greater uncertainty and assumptions than static scoring, potentially leading to less reliable or more easily manipulated estimates. The 'to the greatest extent practicable' clause could also lead to inconsistent application.
Estimated impact: Significantly influences the complexity and potential outcomes of the spectrum valuation, potentially leading to higher estimated commercial values than static methods.