A Democratic bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 5 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "Trees for Residential Energy and Economic Savings Act of 2025" or the "TREES Act of 2025" directs the Secretary of Energy to establish a grant program for tree planting. The goal is to reduce residential energy consumption. The bill authorizes $50,000,000 to be appropriated each year from 2026 through 2030 for the program.
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Reduced Residential Energy Consumption: The primary goal of the grant program is to reduce residential energy consumption (Section 2(c)(1)). This could lower energy bills for homeowners and renters.
-
Prioritization of High Energy Burden Households: The Secretary must prioritize projects that provide the largest potential reduction in residential energy consumption for households with a high energy burden (Section 2(d)(1)). This means that people who spend a large percentage of their income on energy bills could see the most benefit.
-
Focus on Vulnerable Populations: Priority is given to projects in neighborhoods with a high percentage of senior citizens or children (Section 2(d)(4)). This can improve the living environment for these vulnerable groups.
-
Job Creation: Projects that employ local residents, particularly those unemployed or underemployed, will be prioritized (Section 2(d)(7)). This could lead to new job opportunities.
-
Community Engagement: The bill prioritizes projects that collaboratively engage community members affected by the tree planting (Section 2(d)(6)). This could empower residents and ensure the projects meet community needs.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- I am unable to identify any negative impacts based on the text provided.
Yes· 3 of 30
- Scored +7
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Prioritizes households with high energy burdens and areas where income is below the regional median.
- Scored +6
Would people in cities be better off under this?
Focuses on areas with low tree canopy, which are typically urban heat islands.
- Scored +6
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
Increased tree canopy reduces the need for air conditioning, lowering energy-related carbon emissions.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill authorizes additional government spending of $50 million annually.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill increases government spending by establishing a new grant program.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Prioritizes households with high energy burdens and areas where income is below the regional median. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Focuses on areas with low tree canopy, which are typically urban heat islands. Would children be better off under this? — The bill specifically prioritizes neighborhoods with a high percentage of children. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Indian Tribes are explicitly listed as eligible entities to receive grants. Would retired people be better off under this? — Specifically prioritizes neighborhoods with high percentages of senior citizens. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — The bill specifically prioritizes neighborhoods with a high percentage of senior citizens. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Prioritization of low-income and high energy burden areas often benefits marginalized racial groups. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Prioritization of low-income and high energy burden areas often benefits marginalized racial groups. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Potential benefits in underserved urban areas. Would business owners be better off under this? — Beneficial for nurseries and landscaping contractors. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Provides energy savings benefits for residential properties. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Eligible for grants via local government and tribal entities. Would farmers be better off under this? — Indirect benefit to those operating tree nurseries. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Potential for energy bill savings for homeowners. Would union members be better off under this? — Increased demand for labor in planting and landscaping projects. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General energy savings and environmental benefits. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Potential for employment opportunities for underemployed young adults. Would high-income households be better off under this? — General environmental benefit, though not prioritized.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Increased tree canopy reduces the need for air conditioning, lowering energy-related carbon emissions. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Increasing tree planting improves local urban environments and air quality. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Promotes strategic urban forestry and tree canopy management. Does this invest in rural communities? — Grants are available to local government entities and Indian Tribes, which can support rural infrastructure. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — Lower residential energy consumption may marginally reduce demand for fossil-fuel based energy.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Directly targets households with high energy burdens and low incomes to reduce their expenses. Does this make housing cost less? — Reducing residential energy consumption lowers the overall cost of living for housing. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Prioritizing low-income areas and high energy burden households often correlates with improving equity in underserved communities.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill prioritizes projects that employ local residents, specifically those who are unemployed or underemployed. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Job creation and reduced energy costs for households can contribute positively to economic growth. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Local nurseries and landscaping businesses may benefit from increased demand for trees and planting services. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill increases government spending by establishing a new grant program. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill authorizes additional government spending of $50 million annually.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The Secretary of Energy is given authority to establish and manage a new national grant program.
- 5/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/22/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/29/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/24/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Emanuel CleaverDemocrat · Missouri
Sharice DavidsDemocrat · Kansas
Brian FitzpatrickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Michael LawlerRepublican · New York
Sarah McBrideDemocrat · Delaware