(bright music) - [Narrator] PBS Utah presents the Governor's Monthly News Conference, an exchange between Utah reporters and Governor Spencer Cox.

(bright music) - Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

It's great to be with you again.

Thank you for joining us at our monthly press conference.

Happy March Madness to everyone out there.

Hope your brackets are great today and tomorrow, and throughout the weekend.

We're excited for my Aggies and our Aggies and Cougars who are playing today.

And I wish the very best to those teams representing Utah.

I wanna start, if I could, just by sharing a little bit about energy, and where we're headed.

Grateful for the legislature, and just the incredible work that they put forward on the energy front.

Energy production is one of the great challenges of our time.

We need more energy to drive down costs for families, fuel our industries, and keep our country a global economic powerhouse.

We are in an AI arms race with China, and AI is an energy hungry tool.

If a company builds an AI data center anywhere in the country, it can take gigawatts of power off of the grid, whether that's here, or somewhere else, it affects all of us.

And so we want to make sure that energy is less scarce, and less expensive for our homes and businesses.

Now to solve this.

Utah is building an era of energy abundance.

An era where affordable, reliable power drives down costs for Utah families, fuels our economy, and powers opportunity in every corner of our state.

Utah is not waiting for someone else to get it right.

We're stepping up in a big way, working with our trusted neighbors in Idaho and Wyoming to create a tri-state energy compact.

An agreement that will truly protect our energy future, and make sure our citizens aren't paying more for the price of decisions in other states.

Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming have much in common.

We share similar geography, similar economies, and most importantly, similar values.

We believe energy should be affordable and abundant.

We believe it should be reliable, and we believe in an all of the above strategy that makes full use of our fossil fuels, our renewable energy resources, and our critical minerals.

We're not going to pick winners and losers in energy.

We are going to do what makes sense for the people that we serve.

This compact would recognize that we face many of the same challenges, keeping our grid reliable, making sure energy is affordable, meeting increased demand, and pushing back against regulations that don't reflect the realities on the ground here in the West and throughout the country.

Had great meetings with Secretary Burgum, Secretary Wright, the White House on this issue, and we are excited that we have alignment with the federal government.

By working together, we can address these challenges head on.

This compact gives us a way to coordinate on these big issues like investing in new transmission lines, carbon capture technologies, and critical infrastructure that will serve our entire region.

It also gives us a stronger voice when we're advocating for our states in Washington, D.C.

Whether we're talking about federal funding, permitting, or regulatory decisions we'll be better positioned to push for policies that support our priorities, policies that truly reflect our commitment to energy, independence and affordability.

Now, I wanna be clear about what this effort does, and does not do.

It does not create new bureaucracy.

It doesn't impose mandates.

It's about coordination and collaboration.

It's about building a framework for the three states to work together to secure our energy future, and unleash the innovation in our states.

Our Office of Energy Development is leading this effort on our side.

They'll be working closely with their counterparts in Idaho and Wyoming to identify shared goals, and create the framework for the compact.

That includes focusing on how we align our energy policies, how we collaborate on infrastructure, and how we advocate for our region at the national level.

We're building on a proven model.

Interstate compacts have long been used to address cross-border issues, whether it's managing water resources, coordinated transportation systems, or now addressing energy policy.

We know this approach works, and it's time we apply it to one of the most critical issues that we face today.

We are not going to stand by, while other states pursue energy policies that make power less reliable and less affordable.

Utah, Idaho and Wyoming are choosing a different path, one that prioritizes the needs of our citizens over the ideological agendas of coastal states.

It's clear that we need more options.

We need more control over our energy future, and this is a step in that direction.

These relationships with Idaho and Wyoming are opening doors for cooperation on other critical issues, whether it's water management, land use, or economic development.

At the end of the day, this is about protecting Utahans, making sure our families, businesses, and neighborhoods have access to the affordable, reliable energy that they need to succeed for decades to come.

We're driving down costs, building our economy, and securing a better future for Utah and every Utah family.

Utah is ready to lead the nation in a new era of energy abundance.

And with that, I'm happy to take any questions.

- Governor, this morning, the Utah Supreme Court issued a ruling on energy policy dismissing a lawsuit by seven teens over the state's fossil fuel policies, but allowed them to refile it with new claims.

They claim that the state's policies contribute to climate change harming their lives under the Utah Constitution's right to life provision.

So I wanna know, first of all, your thoughts on this ruling, but do your energy policies, or these new energy policies you're talking about do enough to address impacts of climate change?

- Sure, yes.

So the answer to both of those is great decision by the Supreme Court in rejecting those claims.

We had no doubt that that would be the outcome.

These are frivolous claims that have no basis in law, or under our Constitution.

And we believe that we are pursuing the best energy policies for the people of our state and for the future.

Again, I've said this over and over again, and it continues to be proven true that no amount of regulation is going to do what they want us to do.

Innovation is the key to securing our energy future, decarbonizing our atmosphere, and making life better for all of us.

It truly is about innovation, and the very policies that they advocate for are stymieing those regulations making it impossible for us to build the very energy they want us to build, and so, the radical agenda of the extreme environmental movement, it has proven itself a failure.

Hasn't helped the environment at all.

In fact, it's doing more destruction to the environment.

Our inability to build the things that we need to build, including renewable resources.

The very permitting that they advocate for, the lawsuits that they file frivolously, the expense that they add.

I've said this before, I'll say it again.

We finally got a transmission line across the state of Utah.

It took 15 years.

It didn't save one more tree going through that process.

Didn't save one more animal, exactly as it was proposed in the beginning.

None of that environmental regulation that stopped this project for 15 years made any difference for the environment.

The only thing it did was make it three times more expensive, make it almost impossible to get done.

All it did was drive up prices, especially for the most vulnerable.

The people they claim to advocate for are the people that are suffering under the very policies that they're advocating for.

It's an embarrassment.

And I'm grateful that elections have consequences.

I'm grateful that my friends and colleagues on the left are starting to recognize how terrible they've been led astray by this extreme environmental movement.

I'm grateful for governors who are out there advocating for all of the above energy policies, who are expanding their portfolios, who are advocating for permitting reform for less regulation and less restriction.

Let's unleash the ingenuity of Americans so that we can protect the environment, and have enough energy for our citizens.

- Governor, if I can go back to the Tri-State Energy Compact.

Is this effort directly related to the push to separate Rocky Mountain Power from PacifiCorp?

- They are related.

It's certainly part.

It's a subset of what we're working to do.

We definitely are concerned.

You've seen we've issued statements and letters to Rocky Mountain Power, the three governors, and our legislatures are aligned on this issue as well.

We think it's really important.

Sadly, we know that Utahans are paying more for their power because of decisions that have been made in coastal states, in places like Oregon and Washington.

And so we were interested in separating those, but this is so much more than that.

This is working on nuclear issues together, something that we care deeply about.

Working on transmission together.

There are lots of other pieces to this besides just that piece, but it's certainly a subset.

- Governor Cox, this week members of the Utah National Guard who are transgender, were encouraged to begin removing themselves from the force per President Trump's order.

Court has blocked that ban.

And your predecessor said it was something that he couldn't defend Trump on.

What are your thoughts on the court's decision, and Trump's order to have transgender members out of the military?

- Sure, yeah, look, we'll be watching this very closely.

It's a very, very small number.

We care about them.

We care about everyone in this state.

I'm grateful for anyone who's willing to put on a uniform to defend our country.

And so I'm grateful for their work.

That's a decision that will be made by a court, ultimately.

And as that decision is made if the court rules in favor of President Trump's policy, then we'll do everything possible to help them transition to other work.

We've got a system set up to do that.

We want to do this as compassionately as possible, and help those people who may need to find another job if that order goes through.

- [Reporter] Can you support the president's position, - Please?

- We've seen reports that the bill is sitting on your desk that would ban Pride flag displays in public buildings may be the final push for the Sundance Film Festival to move out of state if you sign it into law.

As someone who's strongly urged Sundance to stay, what would be your response to these concerns?

And do you know yet if you'll plan to sign the bill?

- Sure, so look, nothing's changed on the bill.

We're still going through the review process.

What I can say is I care deeply about Sundance.

Sundance is an important part of Utah.

I've said it before, Sundance is Utah.

We've been told by the board very clearly that political issues have nothing to do with their decision.

And so I'm going to take the board at their word.

I saw the same article that that you did that, you know, wasn't sourced.

It was apparently one board member.

I can't speak for that board member, or anything like that.

What I've said to Sundance, and it's the same thing I said to the outdoor rec community.

Like, you know, we don't want you to go.

We want you to stay here.

I was glad when the outdoor industry decided to come back to Utah after they had made a decision to leave our state, and to go to Colorado.

I told them they were making a wrong decision at the time.

They realized they were making a wrong decision at the time.

I would say the same thing to Sundance right now.

And conversely, again, these types of issues are really interesting.

I would encourage you to go ask that board member if that bill did not become law, and by the way, it passed with a veto-proof majority, so.

If that bill did not become law, does that mean that that board member is going to vote to stay here for sure?

Because that's not what they said.

That's not what they said at all.

So it's a little disingenuous of that person, whoever they are.

Nevertheless, look, if that person really does care about making a difference on these issues, then I don't know why leaving makes that better for that person.

It would seem like you would want a seat at the table where you can have these types of discussions, not running to the place where everybody's just like you, and pat you on the back and makes you feel good, you know.

You can send out your mean tweets, and everybody, you know, good job by that, you know.

Doesn't change any hearts and minds.

So if that's an issue you really care about, you think you'd want to stay and fight for that issue, so.

Look, Sundance is going to make their decision.

Again, we were told based on what is best for Sundance, what is best economically for Sundance.

We put together an incredible package that is competitive with anywhere else.

And I will just tell you right now that if Sundance leaves that it will be a mistake.

They will eventually wish that they had not left.

I hope they stay.

This is their heritage.

This is who they are.

People associate Utah with Sundance, and that will continue.

I've talked to people in Hollywood.

I've had conversations.

They laughed when they found out Sundance was even considering leaving.

They couldn't believe it, and so, but, you know, Sundance will make their decision.

It would be an economic hit to the state of Utah if they left, but we'll be fine.

We can figure that out very quickly.

Same thing happened with outdoor rec.

I was told it would destroy the economy if they left.

It wasn't even a blip.

We didn't miss it for a minute.

And we were excited when it came back.

- Governor, this afternoon President Trump will sign an executive order that will step towards eliminating the Department of Education.

And you wrote something to the effect that you would support, you know, this move.

And I'm wondering if you could speak to what do you think are the concrete benefits that Utah schools could see from that change?

And what do you think could be some of the negative impacts potentially on disadvantaged K through 12 students, or potentially college students with heavy loan burdens?

- Yeah, so look, there's a couple things that I think are important in this discussion.

The first one is just, this is not what the federal government was intended to do.

So this was not something the founders imagined that they would do.

They would be playing a role in education.

So I just wanna state out of the gate that I believe that under the Constitution, this is the purview of state government.

The second thing that would be a huge benefit to the state, if you talk to educators, and my wife being an educator in special education, the overwhelming regulatory burden of the federal government, just the reporting requirements alone.

We literally have special ed teachers that do no teaching.

All they do is they're required to fill out form after form, report after report.

So you have these paraeducators who are doing the education because we have to have the people who are best trained to do this work are just reporting all of the time.

And so it's just overwhelming.

The other piece of this that benefits all of us is the amount of money.

If you look at the amount of money that is spent on the Department of Education, and then how much of that money actually gets to students, there's a multi-billion dollar delta there, and that's money that is just the middle person.

It's just bureaucracy that could be saved in a very big way.

So that's one of the areas where I think we would see a huge benefit.

The potential downsides are that there could be a reduction in funding coming to the states.

And what I'm advocating for is, again, we can do two things.

We can actually get more money to the states and save the federal government money, which we need to do.

We're overspending as a federal government, just by eliminating that, and block granting those funds to the states.

I can tell you that that is very popular on the right and the left when it comes to the governors in this country.

I've had that conversation with multiple governors.

I think it would surprise people.

They get really excited and they say, yes, block grant the money to us.

Let us implement our education policies in our state.

And we'll all be better off without that bureaucracy.

- Governor, going to the legislature, there's several bills waiting for your signature.

Among them, H.B.

60, and S.B.

277, both changing access to public records.

KSL requested two months of emails Utahans sent to the state lawmakers about these bills during this year's session.

There were more than 200.

Only three supported the bills.

Do you intend to sign those bills despite how unpopular they appear to be?

- Well, thanks for the leading question.

200 emails is nothing in state government.

I mean that's, I get 200 emails in an hour on an issue that's deeply unpopular.

Look, I do plan to sign these bills.

I think it's best for the state.

I think it's best for state government.

I think it's best for the people.

Look, we have about a four to six month backlog often when it comes to these issues going before the board.

What we're doing is we're putting in an administrative law judge, somebody who understands the law, and who can rule very quickly on these issues.

That's going to help all of you not have to wait for these decisions, to get those decisions out more quickly.

So we're always trying to make sure we have the right balance in government, and I think these bills do that.

- Governor, how concerned are you about the tariffs in the state of Utah?

Not just in terms of products, but also tourism.

And if you are concerned, what have you communicated to the Trump administration?

- Yeah, look, so I hope that President Trump is right when it comes to tariffs, I really do.

I hope this works.

I think it's a huge gamble, I've said that.

I mentioned earlier that everything I learned from my economics classes, and from my time as a political science student was that tariffs are bad.

Utah has a history, kind of a dark history when it comes to tariffs, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which was passed in the, I guess probably 1932, somewhere around there, 1934, I could be wrong.

You can fact-check me on that.

When Senator Reed Smoot was involved in that.

Most everybody thinks that that really led to, I don't think it caused the Great Depression, but it led to deepen the Great Depression, and has been widely panned, so, yeah, I'm concerned.

That being said, a lot has changed since 1932.

And most countries do have tariffs, and it's hard to debate the argument that if tariffs are so bad, why do all these countries have tariffs?

It's also fascinating to me, I was opposed to the Trump tariffs on China during his first administration.

And then you have the Biden administration comes in who undoes everything Trump did, everything.

Immediately on day one they came in and said, anything that Trump touched, even if it was good for our country, including the border, everything else, we're going to undo all of it.

Except the one thing they didn't undo, the one thing Biden didn't undo, the tariffs on China, so.

Look, I'm open to new information.

I'm open to learning.

I'm curious.

I'm hopeful that this will lead to something better for our country.

And we're gonna find out.

I mean, that's the thing.

You can't fake a market.

You can't bully a market.

You can't make markets do.

Markets are going to do what markets do.

And we'll see if it's a little short-term harm for a long-term gain, or if this potentially sends us into a recession.

I certainly hope not.

I'm not an expert on tariff policy, I'm just not.

So I'm gonna be anxious and learn.

Look, they know.

I mean, we've had these conversations.

Everybody's had these conversations.

And so, again, I'm hopeful.

I am concerned with some of the products in Utah.

Less concerned about the tourism.

I mean, there may be some backlash when it comes to the tourism piece.

The reciprocal tariff idea is an interesting one.

If you're using tariffs strategically, if there's a real point and we can get there.

For example, I so appreciate what's happening in Mexico right now.

As you know I've lived in Mexico.

I'm very close.

We've had several trade missions to Mexico.

And every time I go there, the deep concern is security, and what's happening with the cartels.

And President Sheinbaum has really stepped things up.

If you followed the news in the last couple days, there have been several high profile arrests.

Things are happening.

And so if we can use tariff policy to reduce tariffs on U.S. goods and other places, that's good.

If we can use tariff policy to help secure the border, and reduce the criminal activity, and help Mexico be strengthened, those are very positive things.

And so I think it's probably a mixed bag, but I'm really anxious to see what happens.

- So as the Trump administration raise as a new batch of tariffs for the beginning of April, have you had conversations with the construction industry about how their business could be affected by these, particularly given the state's aggressive housing goals?

- Yeah, so what we've done is we've put together a small task force, a team of economists that are part of the administration and outside, who will be working with all of these industries.

They're having those conversations now.

We get updates at least once a week on what's happening with tariff policy, what that looks like, concerns that are coming our way.

Anything we can do to try to mitigate those issues.

So that will continue, so.

I have not had, you know, I'm reviewing 582 bills right now, so I haven't had direct conversations with the industry about it, but my team has, so the task force we put together looking.

And what I want to do is to be able to present the facts to Utahans so that, you know, just unbiased, like, this is what is happening based on what we're seeing in those tariffs, good and bad.

And there will probably be a little of both.

- Governor, your thoughts on the referendum challenging the collective bargaining law.

Do you think it has a chance?

- Yeah, it's interesting.

I think it has a chance to get the signatures.

You know, talk about unpopular bills.

That was certainly one of them.

I think we got 10,000 emails on that one, so a lot of emails.

I love the referendum process.

I love that we have it.

I think it's really important.

I think it's one of those checks on the legislative process.

And if there is a strong outcry, it's a high bar.

It's a really high bar.

It doesn't happen very often, but it does happen.

And when it does happen, it sends a really important message.

This is one, though, where getting the signatures, and getting it on the ballot isn't the same as it passing on the ballot.

And that's where I'm not sure, I'm just not.

The bill doesn't go as far as most people think it does.

I've talked to some teachers, and when they actually read the bill, and found out what was in the bill, it was very different than what they thought it was.

It wasn't nearly as terrible, or draconian as they had expected.

And so it still allows districts, and we encourage district, every district will do this, to negotiate with them.

It just doesn't allow for collective bargaining, which is a very specific form of negotiation.

Most of our school districts don't use collective bargaining anyway, so it doesn't change anything for them.

Same with firefighters and police.

I think we only have one police department in the state that uses collective bargaining.

So, you know, 90% of our cities and towns did not use collective bargaining.

Well, 99% of them didn't use collective bargaining.

So I don't know what the ultimate result of that will be, but that's okay.

If the people wanna overturn it, that's great.

It's cool that we have this tool to allow them to do that.

- [Reporter] Why did you sign it?

- Well, there's a lot that goes into that.

Again, I said I had some problems with the bill.

I didn't love it.

I wish there had been an opportunity for us to bring back on the table the deal that was out there in the first place.

Honestly, we probably could have gotten there if we had had more time.

When bills are passed, most people don't know this.

When bills are passed earlier in the session before the last two weeks of the session, I only have 10 days to sign, or veto those bills.

And then the legislature can immediately override the veto, which even though it didn't pass with the veto-proof majority, by the time I did sign it, after we'd been through those negotiations, I was pretty confident the veto would've been overridden if I had vetoed it.

So there's that piece.

I think if we had had the 20 days post session, if it had passed later in the session, I think there may have been an opportunity to get everybody back to the table and get that done, but there wasn't, so that's where we ended up.

And so the initiative process, or excuse me, the referendum process can move forward.

- Sorry, that's all the time that we have for our television broadcast.

Thank you for joining us for the Governor's Monthly News Conference.

- [Narrator] This has been the Governor's Monthly News Conference.

For video and more information, visit pbsutah.org/governor.

(bright music)