Development in and Around Syracuse Discussion | Page 188 | Syracusefan.com

Development in and Around Syracuse Discussion

Yes the article slated the initial ground break is supposed to start before the end of the year but the start of the actual facility has been pushed back a bit and sounds like it may be even further.
Not the news here if people are familiar with corporate america. I’m challenging this to pre-empt the typical CNY negative Nancy’s. But whoever that is theyl’ll do them.
 
Did I read the article right that some legislative/funding amendment made them shift their immediate attention to completing the 2 fabs in Boise first? That would certainly delay things here.

Part of me is starting to wonder if the whole thing in NY was just a ruse. Don't like being skeptical when it comes to economic development, but if this investment was such a big deal why would they keep finding reasons to delay? It's now so far out in the future that the CNY doubters will be creaming in their pants.
 
Not the news here if people are familiar with corporate america. I’m challenging this to pre-empt the typical CNY negative Nancy’s. But whoever that is theyl’ll do them.

We will see what happens. WSYR had the timeline on the actual construction moving back. Obviously the bigger concern is that the earliest it opens is now looking like probably 2028 and that assumes no additional delays which seems unlikely. I am of the opinion at least 1 fab facility does ultimately get built but I can understand why some people may feel the project overall could be in trouble.
 
We will see what happens. WSYR had the timeline on the actual construction moving back. Obviously the bigger concern is that the earliest it opens is now looking like probably 2028 and that assumes no additional delays which seems unlikely. I am of the opinion at least 1 fab facility does ultimately get built but I can understand why some people may feel the project overall could be in trouble.
If you read that article it certainly sounds like there was some push to divert some of the investment to their HQ. Internal? External? Who the knows.
 

Micron said earlier this year that the first fabrication plant, or fab, was scheduled to open in mid-2028. The opening has now been moved back to late 2030.

Completion of the second fab has been pushed back from late 2030 to late 2033, the company said in the final environmental report on the project, released today.

Micron did not explicitly give reasons for the delays in the report. A company spokewoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Micron did note in the report, however, that the requirements under its agreement for $6.1 billion funding deal with the U.S. Department of Commerce had recently changed.

“The amendment modified the time by approximately two years in which Micron would have the option to commence operations of Fabs 1 and 2 for purposes of the funding agreement,” the environmental report said.

The revised agreement with the commerce department also called for Micron to build a second fab at its headquarters in Boise, Idaho. That fab, and one already under construction in Boise, would open before any of the fabs in Clay, Micron has said this summer in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

That agreement also allowed Micron to shift part of its federal grant from the Clay to the Boise project. The company said a year ago it would spend $4.6 billion of that grant in Clay; now, that number has dropped to $3.4 billion
 

Micron said earlier this year that the first fabrication plant, or fab, was scheduled to open in mid-2028. The opening has now been moved back to late 2030.

Completion of the second fab has been pushed back from late 2030 to late 2033, the company said in the final environmental report on the project, released today.


Micron did not explicitly give reasons for the delays in the report. A company spokewoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Micron did note in the report, however, that the requirements under its agreement for $6.1 billion funding deal with the U.S. Department of Commerce had recently changed.

“The amendment modified the time by approximately two years in which Micron would have the option to commence operations of Fabs 1 and 2 for purposes of the funding agreement,” the environmental report said.

The revised agreement with the commerce department also called for Micron to build a second fab at its headquarters in Boise, Idaho. That fab, and one already under construction in Boise, would open before any of the fabs in Clay, Micron has said this summer in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

That agreement also allowed Micron to shift part of its federal grant from the Clay to the Boise project. The company said a year ago it would spend $4.6 billion of that grant in Clay; now, that number has dropped to $3.4 billion
Commerce department is changing it up. Red state over blue state
 
Don't think it has anything to do with that, I think it's all about a facility that's already up and running vs one where the environmental review just finished.
Why would the Commerce Department care about that?
 
Why would the Commerce Department care about that?

They don't, I was answering the posters question about why Micron moved some funding from Syracuse to Boise. I don't think the Commerce dept cares one iota where they spend it.
 
They don't, I was answering the posters question about why Micron moved some funding from Syracuse to Boise. I don't think the Commerce dept cares one iota where they spend it.

Micron did note in the report, however, that the requirements under its agreement for $6.1 billion funding deal with the U.S. Department of Commerce had recently changed.
The revised agreement with the commerce department also called for Micron to build a second fab at its headquarters in Boise, Idaho.
 
Micron did note in the report, however, that the requirements under its agreement for $6.1 billion funding deal with the U.S. Department of Commerce had recently changed.
The revised agreement with the commerce department also called for Micron to build a second fab at its headquarters in Boise, Idaho.

If I read correctly one is already under construction there, my assumption is they wanted assurance of another facility built in the US. I hope they share the entire new agreement would be interesting reading.
 

Micron said earlier this year that the first fabrication plant, or fab, was scheduled to open in mid-2028. The opening has now been moved back to late 2030.

Completion of the second fab has been pushed back from late 2030 to late 2033, the company said in the final environmental report on the project, released today.


Micron did not explicitly give reasons for the delays in the report. A company spokewoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Micron did note in the report, however, that the requirements under its agreement for $6.1 billion funding deal with the U.S. Department of Commerce had recently changed.

“The amendment modified the time by approximately two years in which Micron would have the option to commence operations of Fabs 1 and 2 for purposes of the funding agreement,” the environmental report said.

The revised agreement with the commerce department also called for Micron to build a second fab at its headquarters in Boise, Idaho. That fab, and one already under construction in Boise, would open before any of the fabs in Clay, Micron has said this summer in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

That agreement also allowed Micron to shift part of its federal grant from the Clay to the Boise project. The company said a year ago it would spend $4.6 billion of that grant in Clay; now, that number has dropped to $3.4 billion
Got Schumer, the NY delegation, and NYS to go all in and now the deal is shifting.

NIMBY’s pushing back, who knows what the long term legal and political risk is in NY.

Less than even money this ever happens.
 
If the environmental study has just been completed, what are the next steps?* There is a present push to remove as much manufacturing from China to western and pro-western countries. Is it pragmatic to move instant focus to Idaho which can get a second plant online before NY can get its first plant online?

* I am no expert, just posing a question to those on both the construction and manufacturing sides (as well as anyone else with some expertise).
 
The shift is 100% political.
“If you want the money, you need to direct it to Boise. You make the call.”
 

Forum statistics

Threads
175,005
Messages
5,197,619
Members
6,163
Latest member
Cuse1997

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
1,702
Total visitors
1,881
Top Bottom