Fire Safe Electrical Corridors Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/2492
Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24]

ID: C001112

Follow the money

The bill

Fire Safe Electrical Corridors Act of 2025

HR. 2492, 119th Congress — read as touching Electric Utilities.

The sponsor

Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$81,766 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

95% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Agriculture" section, p. 341-343 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

May 13, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. The Fire Safe Electrical Corridors Act of 2025 - because who doesn't love a good title that sounds like it was focus-grouped by a committee of tone-deaf bureaucrats?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's ostensible purpose is to allow the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to permit the removal of trees around electrical lines on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management lands without conducting a timber sale. Because, you know, those pesky environmental regulations were just getting in the way of progress.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends existing law by allowing special use permits or easements to include permission for cutting and removal of trees or other vegetation within the vicinity of distribution lines or transmission lines. Oh, and if the electrical utility sells any of the removed material, they have to give the Secretary concerned a cut of the proceeds - minus transportation costs, because we wouldn't want to burden them with actual expenses.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected: National Forest System lands, Bureau of Land Management lands, electrical utilities, and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior. But let's be real, the only stakeholders who truly matter are the lobbyists and campaign donors who will benefit from this legislation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "regulatory capture" - where industry interests hijack the legislative process to further their own agendas. The real purpose of this bill is not to promote fire safety, but to give electrical utilities carte blanche to clear-cut trees and vegetation without having to go through the hassle of environmental reviews or timber sales.

The potential impact? More profits for electrical utilities, more campaign contributions for politicians, and a few more acres of National Forest System lands turned into treeless wastelands. But hey, at least we'll have "fire-safe" electrical corridors - until the next wildfire season rolls around, that is.

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a severe case of "Corporate Cronyism-itis," a disease characterized by an excessive influence of special interests on legislative policy. Treatment involves a healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for bureaucratic doublespeak, and a willingness to call out the obvious lies and half-truths peddled by politicians and lobbyists.

Prognosis: Poor. This bill will likely pass with flying colors, thanks to the tireless efforts of industry lobbyists and the complicity of our esteemed lawmakers. But don't worry - we'll just blame it on the trees when the next wildfire season rolls around.

Related Topics

Public Lands & Natural ResourcesWater & Air Quality RegulationsClimate Change & Sustainability
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$81,766
24 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$37,100
Committees
$0
Individuals
$44,666

No PAC contributions found

1
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
2
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
2 transactions
$6,600
3
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
3 transactions
$4,000
4
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
2 transactions
$3,500
5
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
6
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
7
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
8
ONEIDA NATION
2 transactions
$2,000
9
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,500
10
MOHEGAN TRIBE OF INDIANS OF CONNECTICUT
1 transaction
$1,000
11
THE CHICKASAW NATION
1 transaction
$1,000
12
PACIFIC KIES
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
TILLMAN, BRIAN
1 transaction
$6,600
2
OBERACKER, BETTY
1 transaction
$5,000
3
COONEY, MARNI
1 transaction
$3,333
4
COONEY, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$3,333
5
BRITTINGHAM, ELLA
1 transaction
$3,300
6
DIXON, PETER
1 transaction
$3,300
7
RESNICK, LYNDA RAE
1 transaction
$3,300
8
ABDULLATIF, AIED
1 transaction
$3,300
9
ARISON, MADELEINE
1 transaction
$3,300
10
ARISON, MICKY
1 transaction
$3,300
11
ATWATER, TANYA
1 transaction
$3,300
12
CHRISMAN, ROGER
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-22]

ID: V000129

Top Contributors

10

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
2
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
3
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$3,300
Dec 20, 2023
4
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Mar 31, 2023
5
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Feb 28, 2024
6
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$3,300
Feb 28, 2024
7
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
May 25, 2023
8
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
Jun 29, 2024
9
MOORETOWN RANCHERIA
OrganizationOROVILLE, CA
$3,300
Sep 26, 2024
10
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Aug 16, 2024

Rep. Costa, Jim [D-CA-21]

ID: C001059

Top Contributors

10

1
TABLE MOUNTAIN RANCHERIA
OrganizationFRIANT, CA
$3,300
Oct 30, 2023
2
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Sep 18, 2024
3
JJF SP TRUST
OrganizationSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024
4
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RANCH
OrganizationFRESNO, CA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
5
SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$1,000
Jul 31, 2023
6
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,000
Sep 8, 2023
7
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,000
May 19, 2023
8
CHAPPELL-MCLULLAR TRUST
OrganizationHONOLULU, HI
$500
Mar 2, 2024
9
ARK, MANDEEP
SELF EMPLOYED • INTERPRETER
IndividualFRESNO, CA
$6,500
Aug 14, 2024
10
AFZAL, TEHMINA
SELF EMPLOYED • INTERPRETER
IndividualCHINO HILLS, CA
$6,500
Aug 14, 2024

Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]

ID: F000466

Top Contributors

10

1
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,500
Dec 31, 2024
2
STATA FAMILY OFFICE
Organization
$500
Apr 26, 2024
3
ASHER, ROBERT B.
IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA
$10,000
Oct 9, 2024
4
ASHER, ROBERT B.
ASHER CHOCOLATES • CHAIRMAN
IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA
$10,000
Sep 30, 2024
5
LEVY, EDWARD JR
EDW C LEVY CO • CHAIRMAN
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$6,600
Feb 26, 2024
6
CROTTY, THOMAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$6,600
Feb 27, 2024
7
EVANS, ROGER
GREYLOCK PARTNERS • PARTNER EMERITUS
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$6,600
Feb 27, 2024
8
LEACH, RONALD
NPX ONE • CHAIRMAN & CEO
IndividualGENEVA, IL
$6,600
Feb 28, 2024
9
MCCLAIN, MARK
SAILPOINT • CEO
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$6,600
Mar 2, 2024
10
CROTTY, THOMAS
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$6,600
Mar 8, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 76 nodes and 39 connections (77 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $113,566

Top Donors - Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

12 Orgs12 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

  • +Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.95

    Section 2(a) allows electrical utilities to cut and remove trees near distribution/transmission lines on federal lands without a separate timber sale, reducing regulatory burden and costs.

  • Tree removal and vegetation management around power lines may involve construction and engineering services for clearing, benefiting firms in that sector.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Agriculture

Very Strong
Vector: 64%
Pages: 341-343AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly enables proactive removal of trees and vegetation around power lines to reduce wildfire fuel loads, streamlines permitting to lower regulatory barriers, and returns revenue from removed material—core elements of the Project 2025 call for active forest management, thinning, increased timber sales, and reduced regulatory obstacles."

Key themes:wildfire risk reductionvegetation/fuel thinningregulatory streamliningbiomass/timber utilizationproactive forest management

— 308 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management. The United States Forest Service is one of four federal government land management agencies that admin- ister 606 million acres, or 95 percent of the 640 million acres of surface land area managed by the federal government.115 Located within the USDA, the Forest Service manages the National Forest System, which is comprised of 193 million acres.116 As explained by the USDA, “The USDA Forest Service’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.”117 The Forest Service should focus on proactive management of the forests and grasslands that does not depend heavily on burning. There should be resilient forests and grasslands in the wake of management actions. Wildfires have become a primary vegetation management regime for national forests and grasslands.118 Recognizing the need for vegetation management, the Forest Service has adopted “pyro-silviculture” using “unplanned” fire,119 such as unplanned human-caused fires, to otherwise accomplish vegetation management.120 The Forest Service should instead be focusing on addressing the precipitous annual amassing of biomass in the national forests that drive the behavior of wildfires. By thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps, the Forest Service can help to minimize the consequences of wildfires. Increasing timber sales could also play an important role in the effort to change the behavior of wildfire because there would be less biomass. Timber sales and timber harvested in public forests dropped precipitously in the early 1990s and still remain very low. For example, in 1988, the volume of timber sold and harvested by volume was about 11 billion and 12.6 billion board feet (BBF), respectively.121 In 2021, timber sold was 2.8 BBF and timber harvested was 2.4 BBF. In 2018, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13855 to, among other things, promote active management of forests and reduce wildfire risks.122 The executive order stated, “Active management of vegetation is needed to treat these dangerous conditions on Federal lands but is often delayed due to challenges associated with regulatory analysis and current consultation requirements.”123 It further explained the need to reduce regulatory obstacles to fuel reduction in forests created by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.124 The next Administration should: l Champion executive action, consistent with law, and proactive legislation to reduce wildfires. This would involve embracing Executive Order 13855, building upon it, and working with lawmakers to promote active management of vegetation, reduce regulatory obstacles to reducing fuel buildup, and increase timber sales.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak
Vector: 64%
Pages: 437-439AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on streamlining vegetation removal around power lines to reduce wildfire risk on federal lands, whereas the Project 2025 policy addresses FERC transmission planning, cost allocation, and preventing subsidies for renewable generators; they share only a tangential connection to electrical infrastructure on federal lands."

Key themes:electrical infrastructurefederal landsutility operations

— 405 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions l End undue discrimination that allows subsidized resources to distort price formation in RTOs. l Affirm its commitment that states will decide whether to join an RTO instead of imposing RTOs on regions that do not want them. FERC should also consider allowing states to enter into non-RTO power pools with alternative structures for the sharing of resources and electric generation. FERC: ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION Mission/Overview Under the Federal Power Act, FERC has the authority to regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of interstate electric transmission. (Pursuant to court cases, interstate transmission can be entirely within a state, although the part of Texas served by ERCOT is not under FERC transmission jurisdiction.) Needed Reforms FERC has been considering how to plan for and allocate costs for new trans- mission lines and how new generation resources will be interconnected to the transmission grid. (Transmission expansion and replacement decisions are usu- ally made by local utilities or by an RTO or regional planning entity). Through two major rulemakings,118 FERC is attempting to facilitate the building of more long-range transmission lines and to socialize more of the costs of transmission buildouts to more customers in order to make it cheaper for renewable develop- ers (primarily) to interconnect to the grid and sell their power. Socializing such costs is a form of subsidy for generators and will cause further price distortions in RTOs and ISOs that will make it less economical for reliable, dispatchable resources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas to stay operational and support reliability.119 Also, under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, DOE and FERC are granted authority to site and permit high-priority transmission lines as National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs). The Inflation Reduction Act provides funding to DOE to support transmission expansion.120 These initiatives will undermine state input and decision-making. FERC will consider rules on how NIETC transmission applications are to be made. New Policies FERC should either change course on its existing transmission rulemakings (if still in progress) or issue a new rulemaking to: — 406 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Ensure that transmission planning and interconnection processes are resource neutral. l Prevent socializing costs for customers who do not benefit from the projects or justifying such cost shifts as advancing vague “societal benefits” such as climate change. l Stop cost allocation from becoming a subsidy for generators, such as renewables. With respect to NIETCs, FERC and the new DESAS should ensure that state interests are respected and not allow such NEITC transmission lines to be devel- oped as a mere subsidy to renewable developers. Furthermore, much of the transmission buildout (including its attendant costs) is being driven by renewable developers seeking market share. These projects are causing rates for customers to go up and hurting reliability. FERC needs to ensure that transmission buildouts are planned for the benefit of customers. FERC: NATURAL GAS PIPELINES Mission/Overview FERC permits, sites, and authorizes the construction and operation of inter- state natural gas pipelines.121 It also regulates the rates for the shipping of natural gas122 (but not the price of the natural gas commodity, which is market based). FERC is charged with ensuring that natural gas pipelines are approved if they are required by the “public convenience and necessity.”123 Pipeline permitting is sub- ject to environmental reviews under NEPA, and the rate for the pipeline and the shipping of the commodity is set by FERC under a just and reasonable standard. Once FERC approves a project, the holder of the certificate has the sovereign’s power of eminent domain. Needed Reforms Natural gas pipelines are vital for the economy, manufacturing, heating, and electric generation. Opposition from “Keep it in the ground” environmentalists has made it harder to gain approvals for natural gas pipelines. Under Democrat leadership, FERC has proposed official policies to consider upstream and down- stream GHG emissions from the use of the natural gas that would be shipped in the pipeline to be part of FERC’s public-interest determination when deciding whether to approve a pipeline. There is conflicting direction from the D.C. Circuit on the GHG issue, which also could be seen as a “major questions” issue under the U.S. Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA decision.124

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak
Vector: 64%
Pages: 410-412AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on wildfire prevention through vegetation management around power lines on federal lands, while the Project 2025 policy section addresses Department of Energy reforms, fossil fuel energy security, LNG exports, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve—there is minimal thematic overlap between wildfire risk reduction and DOE energy program restructuring."

Key themes:energy infrastructurefederal landsenvironmental compliance

— 377 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions majority of critical materials are mined or processed (or both) in Russia and China.36 The processing of critical materials from fossil fuel waste products (primarily coal) has shown some potential and, in view of our vast domestic reserves of coal and abundant waste from coal mining and combustion, should be pursued. New Policies l Eliminate FECM. The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate all of DOE’s applied energy programs, including those in FECM (with the possible exception of those that are related to basic science for new energy technology). Taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize preferred businesses and energy resources, thereby distorting the market and undermining energy reliability. l Rename FECM (if it cannot be eliminated) under its original designation as the Office of Fossil Energy and with its original mission: increasing energy security and supply through fossil fuels. l Focus on energy security and supply. Absent elimination of FECM, Congress should direct FECM appropriations toward increasing energy security and supply. Congress has already directed these goals (including the reduction of costs).37 l Ensure that LNG export approvals are reviewed and processed in a timely manner. In particular: 1. Ensure that LNG export applications are reviewed and approved expeditiously. 2. Maintain the categorical exclusion from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)38 for LNG exports that was established by the Trump Administration39 or (if it is revoked by the Biden Administration) reinstate it. 3. Work with Congress to expand automatic approvals to include allies such as NATO as well as nations that have free trade agreements with the U.S. l Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The Biden Administration moved responsibility for the SPR to CESER. Regardless of where the responsibility lies, the new DESAS should ensure that the SPR is maintained for national strategic purposes and not misused for political gain. — 378 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Budget The FY 2023 budget request for FECM was approximately $893.2 million.40 FECM’s requested appropriation can be compared to the more than $4.0 billion requested for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.41 The disparity in funding demonstrates how DOE’s research activities and substantial portions of its organizational structure are now focused entirely on the reduction of CO2 emissions rather than energy access or energy security. OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY (EERE) Mission/Overview The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy traces its roots to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975,42 but most of its programs today are rooted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.43 Under the Biden Administration, EERE’s mission is “to accelerate the research, development, demonstration, and deployment of technologies and solutions to equitably transition America to net- zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions economy-wide by no later than 2050” and “ensure [that] the clean energy economy benefits all Americans.”44 The office is made up of three “pillars”: energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainable transportation. Needed Reforms l End the focus on climate change and green subsidies. Under the Biden Administration, EERE is a conduit for taxpayer dollars to fund progressive policies, including decarbonization of the economy and renewable resources. EERE has focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions to the exclusion of other statutorily defined requirements such as energy security and cost. For example, EERE’s five programmatic priorities during the Biden Administration are all focused on decarbonization of the electricity sector, the industrial sector, transportation, buildings, and the agricultural sector.45 l Eliminate energy efficiency standards for appliances. Pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 as amended, the agency is required to set and periodically tighten energy and/or water efficiency standards for nearly all kinds of commercial and household appliances, including air conditioners, furnaces, water heaters, stoves, clothes washers and dryers, refrigerators, dishwashers, light bulbs, and showerheads. Current law and regulations reduce consumer choice, drive up costs for consumer appliances, and emphasize energy efficiency to the exclusion of other important factors such as cycle time and reparability.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills