Viewing blog posts written by Gino DiCaro

Intel sets high bar: Folsom facility now powered by 50% solar power

Posted by Gino DiCaro, VP, Communications on Feb. 19, 2016

U.S. chipmaker and California pride, Intel Corp, launched the country's largest private sector solar carport this week in Folsom, California.

The 6.5 megawatt (MW) solar installation, along with their existing solar infrastructure shows off their voluntary commitment to energy efficiency and environmental sustainability.

At peak capacity, the total installation will generate over 50 percent of the campus’ peak hour energy usage. The installation will power the equivalent of nearly 1,000 homes.

CMTA is proud to represent such a great California company and we congratulate Intel on being a leading force in energy innovation.








Tags: Intel Solar

0 comments | Post your comment

California Needs a Fresh Start

Posted by Gino DiCaro, VP, Communications on March 7, 2008

As I cleaned out 12 years of clutter from my office this week in preparation for CMTA's big March 28 move to a stone's throw from the Capitol, one thing came to mind -- California and I need a fresh start.  The move will take care of my itch, but I have a few things the State should consider as a refresher for it's own house.  Among the detritus of a decade's worth of paper, press releases, issues archives, pesky "to do" lists, reports, and un-expensed receipts, I came across three very worthy items that deserve California's attention.

The first was a 1998 5-pound notebook from the now defunct California Trade and Commerce Agency titled, The California Location Book -- a book created to give corporations every reason to grow in the state.   (see table of contents)

The second was a study done in 2006, titled Manufacturing Prosperity Initiative, proving the decline in wages and requesting the reinvigoration of the Jerry Brown instigated -- but never implemented -- California Commission for Industrial Innovation. (see letter / summary)

The third was a 2004 Proclamation by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to "Reaffirm California's commitment to the success of our manufacturing industry."  (see Proclamation)

The recruitment tool, the original Commission (and the 2006 request), and the Proclamation were meant to be important cylinders in the engine of high wage manufacturing growth and certainty in California.  All are lifeless.  All need a fresh start.


First the fact that there is no California recruitment agency (AKA someone accountable for the loss of 400,000 lost manufacturing jobs) charged with the State's economic security as it pertains to our biggest wealth creator is at the least, worrisome, at the worst, negligent (See Tesla Motors ... Buck Knives ... Intel's wafer fab ... Oregon's new solar cluster).  The Local Economic Development agencies are doing yeoman's work at the local level -- and usually understaffed -- but we need a statewide organization that can lead, oversee, track, market and advocate.  If we had one, they'd be diligently working on new recruitment tools, much like the 300-page brochure unearthed in my office this week, and making a case for competitive tax incentives and some degree of certainty in policies affecting job creators.

While corporate decisions aren't made on recruitment books and marketing materials, the absence of such things means no one is asking what incentives to market. (Granted, the Gov. has done his own sporadic marketing in between governing the largest state in the union)

Second, the Manufacturing Prosperity Initiaitive proved the State is slouching toward a service-sector economy.  Most importantly showing data on the growing sectors versus declining sectors:  growing sectors average wages were $15,000 less than the declining sectors.  CMTA updated these numbers to reflect 2001 to 2006 data.  The difference increased to $26,000.  (see chart)

Third, the Legislature and Governor, in these times of budgetary debate, need to once again affirm that manufacturing and the always-to-follow R&D jobs are the lifeblood of Californians -- not to mention new global warming innovations -- and provide the much needed revenue and growth needed to help pull the State out of it's $16 billion deficit.

March 28 is my fresh start.  I'll be at our new digs at 1115 11th Street working on California's fresh start.

0 comments | Post your comment

Why not California #2

Posted by Gino DiCaro, VP, Communications on Jan. 28, 2008

Last week, Intel announced that it will be closing the last semiconductor manufacturing facility in Santa Clara, California, affecting 500 jobs -- many of  which carried salaries above $70,000.  A large portion of the wafer fabrication plant's past growth was a direct result of the 1993 California Manufacturers Investment Credit - a credit that disappeared in 2003, leaving California as one of only four states that taxes capital manufacturing equipment.   Intel executives have argued for some time that it had become increasingly difficult to compete globally and manufacture in the State because of California’s tax and economic development policies and the resulting relatively high costs.  Though challenging to manufacture domestically, nonetheless, Intel continues to do so in four other states, in part, due to their tax and economic development laws and policies.

Intel is now looking at a possible re-use of the Santa Clara facility as a wafer mask design shop, but at considerably less property tax value, and very likely less jobs.   Both bad signs for the State's economy, budget and working families.

The Pacific Policy Institute of California's (PPIC) job-migration report last November said there was "little cause for concern about California's business climate".  According to the PPIC, California trends with the rest of the country in terms of actual loss and sees mostly internal job migration.  However, they use data from 1992 to 2004 to come up with aggregate migration numbers for industries.  Assuming this is the most current comprehensive data, there are two very important points:  First, we need to look at the migration number from 2001 to 2007, a time period that yielded the precipitous decline of just under 400,000 manufacturing jobs with no apparent bounce back, and secondly, we need to understand the decisions we don't know about ...  in other words, the growth and opportunity that could have been started in California but never got off the ground with decision makers.  The first problem, for now, is an available data challenge and the second will always be an unknown, at least without installing cameras in every board room across the country.

We know this:  It is costly for manufacturers to move production.  If we struggle to keep Intel and others operating in the State, how can we expect to attract new facilities from elsewhere.   For corporate Boards to decide to stay in, move to, and grow within a certain region, they need to understand the certainty of their costs and know that they can compete with businesses in other states and countries. Apparently, for Intel, those two questions did not produce relatively favorable answers.

Wisconsin showed recently that it understands these dynamics by sending a virtual beacon to wavering manufacturing facilities by packaging up new and existing tax credits, totaling $85 million, for manufacturers that create jobs and train workers. Now that's how you attract new growth from the highest-wage sector of our economy.

0 comments | Post your comment

Copyright © 2019, California Manufacturers & Technology Association. All rights reserved.