You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
An interview with Ola Källenius on Mercedes-Benz’s road to electrification.
Back in 2019 Mercedes-Benz announced that it would go fully electric by 2030 where markets allow, and the brand is rapidly heading towards that goal. Every new platform and powertrain developed by Mercedes starting from 2025 will be electric, with the current set of gas engines designed to last through the next few product life cycles until being phased out.
Even more importantly, according to Mercedes-Benz’s chairman of the board and CEO Ola Källenius, Mercedes will be completely carbon-neutral by 2039, a plan it calls Ambition 2039. This was derived from the Paris Climate Agreement, which aims for the world to be net zero by 2050. I sat down with Källenius at a roundtable in Vienna during the first drive of the new E-Class – still an internal-combustion car, but one with electrified powertrains – to learn more about Mercedes’ decarbonization plans, EV strategy, and overall outlook on the future of the automotive industry.
“Mercedes-Benz is a brand that stands for the promise of a better future, and that better future is fundamentally a zero-emissions business,” says Källenius, adding that the decarbonization goal will happen in just three product life cycles. He also believes that Mercedes could actually hit its decarbonization goal a little early, closer to the start of the 2030s than the end.
It’s not just people inside the company that want this to happen, either. “There’s not a single long investor in Mercedes stock that doesn’t believe the company needs to decarbonize,” Källenius says. “Even if there weren’t regulatory will, we’re at the point where the financial market made up its mind that a sustainable business strategy is the one that is more economically safe.” He adds that even investors with fossil-based revenue streams are heavily investing in new verticals.
Källenius also thinks aggressively pursuing decarbonization will let Mercedes stay nimble. “We already have strategic clarity; we know what the journey and destination is, and it’s zero emissions,” he says. “But during this transformation, which is more than a decade long and it’s difficult to judge exactly when and what will happen, we need tactical flexibility and we have that.” This means that when the industry gets to the point where the new technology unseats the incumbent technology and there is exponential growth, Mercedes needs to be (and already is) in a position where it doesn’t fall behind. Källenius describes Mercedes as being its own venture capitalist, as it’s in control over financing for its transition to EVs.
All of Mercedes’ global assembly plants have already been made powertrain flexible, so a shift to more EV production will be easy, Källenius argues. Mercedes recently transformed its Alabama facility to produce the EQE and EQS SUVs for global consumption, for example.
Also important to decarbonization is the manufacturing process. “The defining challenge of our generation is to take care of the CO2 problem,” says Källenius, “and it has to be from A to Z, all the suppliers, all our operations, the car itself and the car in use. The twin of the CO2 problem is a circular economy. How do we reduce the use of primary materials in the production of goods? It’s an even bigger problem to solve technologically and economically.” For most current car manufacturers the secondary material content – materials that have been used or recycled – is between 20 to 30 percent. Mercedes is targeting 40 percent by 2030. “That might not sound ambitious, but believe me, engineering-wise it’s unbelievably ambitious,” Källenius says.
The idea is to decouple economic growth from resource usage growth, especially when it comes to EV batteries as they are made up of precious materials like lithium, manganese and cobalt. Mercedes is building its own experimental battery recycling and research factory along with some partners, and prototypes have already been developed that can get recycling quotes into “the deep 90 percent” range. It’s also working with German chemical companies to go through every polymer category and figure out recycling options category by category. Källenius says that one day batteries coming back from vehicles will be “the biggest virtual mine in the world.”
You might think it would be hard to get Mercedes’ suppliers and partners on board with the Ambition 2039 plan, but according to Källenius that wasn’t the case. “When we defined Ambition 2039 it only works if all our suppliers go CO2 neutral as well. If you’re not on board with the program, you’re not on board,” says Källenius. “If all things are equal from performance to quality and price, in a competitive bid if one company has a better plan for decarbonization than the other, that could be the kind of thing that tips the scale.”
Once a year Mercedes holds a conference where it invites 500 of its most important suppliers to go over the year’s results and plan for the future, and at the first one in 2019 after announcing Ambition 2039 the company told its suppliers that it expected each one to come up with an equivalent plan. “The reaction back then from some of the more progressive companies was ‘welcome to the club, you are preaching to the choir,’ and for many in the room it was ‘oh shit, these guys are serious,’” remembers Källenius. “Now I would say 90 percent of our suppliers have a plan.”
Some of Mercedes’ steel suppliers are already deep into carbon-free steel production, with the first results to be in production cars in less than two years. One of the companies, the Swedish firms H2GS, should be carbon-free by 2030 thanks to the use of hydroelectric power. As another example, Mercedes is working with an aluminum producer to reduce its carbon footprint by 70 percent. “Ten years ago, pretty much everyone around the table would’ve said ‘that’s not possible, it’s not gonna happen,’” says Källenius. “Now it’s happening.”
Källenius says the two core technologies driving the shift to EVs are the electric drivetrains and the software, and vertical integration is extremely important to both. For instance, Mercedes owns everything about its powertrains all the way down to the battery chemistry.
The vertical integration is tougher when it comes to the digital side of things. Traditionally electronic architectures in cars have been decentralized – when automakers buy an ECU they buy an entire software package along with it, and the car manufacturer then integrates the functionality. “We said we need to control the brain and central nervous system of the car,” says Källenius. Having this much centralized control over the software means updates and improvements can be made much quicker than before.
The new E-Class is the first Mercedes to have the updated MBUX operating system and cloud infrastructure, in which every single line of code has been programmed by Mercedes for the first time.
Like nearly every other carmaker, Mercedes recently announced that its future EVs will use the NACS charge port pioneered by Tesla. NACS will soon become an SAE standard, which Källenius says played into the decision to switch. “We always do what we think is best for the customer in terms of convenience, and the most likely scenario is NACS,” says Källenius. The first NACS-equipped Benzes won’t start coming out until around 2025, and in the meantime the brand will offer an adapter for existing EVs with the CCS charge port.
Automakers have never historically worked on gas station infrastructure, leaving that to energy companies, but in the electric era that is changing too. Accessible fast charging is potentially the largest pain point for EV customers, so more car companies are figuring out their own solutions to help aid the lagging infrastructure. Later this year Mercedes will open its first high-speed charging stations in the US, with 10,000 coming to America, China and Europe by the end of the decade as part of a multi-billion-dollar investment. The switch to NACS will help in the meantime, allowing Mercedes EV drivers to use Tesla’s expansive Supercharger network. “While we’re building our charging infrastructure, why not offer the Mercedes customer access to the 12,000 chargers built by another company,” Källenius says, “it will create more convenience and maybe take away a little bit of doubt for people that are thinking about buying an EV.”
When it comes to passenger cars Källenius says EVs are the clear way forward versus hydrogen or other synthetic fuels, but those solutions could have other uses. Shipping is one of the biggest issues when it comes to decarbonization; for mass-volume models it’s easy enough to build a local factory in China or the U.S., but for a low-volume model like the SL sports car it’s not economically feasible to have multiple production locations. Mercedes is maximizing its use of shipping by rail, especially in countries like Germany where it’s more feasible, and it’s experimenting with using hydrogen for semi trucks. Overseas and air shipping is even tougher to decarbonize, but synthetic fuels could help with that in the future too.
Källenius just celebrated his 30th anniversary at Mercedes, and he says right now is the most exciting time to be in the industry because everything is changing.
“We have to reinvent the original invention.,” he says. “We have got to be Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz again.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Rob and Jesse talk with former Ford economist Ellen Hughes-Cromwick.
Over the past 30 years, the U.S. automaking industry has transformed how it builds cars and trucks, constructing a continent-sized network of factories, machine shops, and warehouses that some call “Factory North America.” President Trump’s threatened tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports will disrupt and transform those supply chains. What will that mean for the automaking industry and the transition to EVs?
Ellen Hughes-Cromwick is the former chief economist at Ford Motor Company, where she worked from 1996 to 2014, as well as the former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Commerce. She is now a senior visiting fellow at Third Way and a senior advisor at MacroPolicy Perspective LLC.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse chat with Ellen about how automakers build cars today, why this system isn’t built for trade barriers, and whether Trump’s tariffs could counterintuitively help electric vehicles. Shift Key is hosted by Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University, and Robinson Meyer, Heatmap’s executive editor.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Jesse Jenkins: I hear often that we’re also sending parts back and forth as well — that particularly near the border with Canada, we have manufacturing parts suppliers on both sides of the border. So it’s not just the final car, it’s also pieces of the car going back and forth. How does stuff move around in this sort of complicated trade network between, Canada, the U.S., and Mexico?
Ellen Hughes-Cromwick: There is a lot of back and forth, and as you mentioned, a lot of the automotive analysts track the travel of not just the vehicles, but the parts. And the latest estimates show that in some cases, we’re going back and forth across the Ambassador Bridge here in Detroit, you know, six, eight times.
So when you say all of a sudden, as of tomorrow, I’m going to put a 25% tariff on that — I mean, that basically shutters businesses. You can’t absorb a 25% hit, especially if it’s a part or an assembled vehicle. Part of that 25% you could probably absorb, but for the thin margins that parts suppliers work for day in and day out, I mean, there’s just no way. You’re better off shuttering your business. I hate to say that, but you know, you just can’t make the equation work, with a 25% hit.
Jenkins: So this is hypothetical structure, I don’t know if this is exactly right, but so you might have engine parts manufactured in Michigan being sent to Windsor, Ontario to assemble an internal combustion engine. And then it goes back to a plant somewhere else in the U.S. to be assembled into a vehicle. Maybe you get the glass from somewhere for the windows, you know, these are all moving back and forth on a regular basis after so many years of free trade agreements between the two countries, or the three.
Hughes-Cromwick: That’s right. That’s right. And again, coming back to Michigan, because we’re so close to the suppliers in Canada, and we have the lion’s share of automotive suppliers, especially small and mid-size suppliers — so the tier two, tier three. They’re supplying to a tier one big supplier like Magna or Borg.
So you’ve got a lot of these tier two, tier three suppliers in Michigan. Well, why? Because they’re getting a part from a Canadian supplier, putting it into theirs. And maybe that’s a component that goes into an internal combustion engine that’s being produced.
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Download Heatmap Labs and Hydrostor’s free report to discover the crucial role of long duration energy storage in ensuring a reliable, clean future and stable grid. Learn more about Hydrostor here.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
For now at least, USAID’s future looks — literally — dark.
Elon Musk has put the U.S. Agency for International Development through the woodchipper of his de facto department this week in the name of “efficiency.” The move — which began with a Day One executive order by President Trump demanding a review of all U.S. foreign aid that was subsequently handed off to Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency — has resulted in the layoff or furloughing of hundreds of USAID employees, as well as imperiled the health of babies and toddlers receiving medical care in Sudan, the operations of independent media outlets working in or near despotic regimes, and longtime AIDS and malaria prevention campaigns credited with saving some 35 million lives. (The State Department, which has assumed control of the formerly independent agency, has since announced a “confounding waiver process … [to] get lifesaving programs back online,” ProPublica reports.) Chaos and panic reign among USAID employees and the agency’s partner organizations around the globe.
The alarming shifts have also cast enormous uncertainty over the future of USAID’s many clean energy programs, threatening to leave U.S. allies quite literally in the dark. “There are other sources of foreign assistance — the State Department and the Defense Department have different programs — but USAID, this is what they do,” Tom Ellison, the deputy director for the Center for Climate and Security, a nonpartisan think tank, told me. “It is central and not easily replaced.”
In addition to “saving and improving lives around the world in an altruistic sense,” USAID has “a lot of benefits for U.S. national interests and national security,” Ellison went on. Though USAID dates back to the Cold War, its Power Africa initiative launched under President Barack Obama in 2013, and energy investment projects around the world followed. Of its $42.8 billion budget request for 2025, the agency had earmarked $4.1 billion for global infrastructure and investment programs, including energy security and excluding its additional targeted energy investment in Ukraine.
Some of these benefits are immediate and obvious. For example, USAID invested $422 million in new energy infrastructure in Ukraine, including more than a thousand generators and a solar and battery storage project, all to brace against Russia’s weaponized flow of fossil fuels. (USAID was also reviewing the deployment of Musk’s Starlink Satellite Terminals to the Ukrainian government prior to his gutting of the agency, per The Lever.)
But USAID is in the power business for other strategic reasons, too. USAID initiatives such as assisting Georgia and Kosovo in running their first renewable energy auctions help to secure energy stability and independence among countries where Russia is trying to gain sway. By the same token, rural electrification efforts in Africa help the U.S. remain a leader on the continent even as China is looking to make inroads. “China’s infrastructure and assistance programs around the world, like the Belt and Road Initiative — they consider that very explicitly a lever to peel U.S. allies away,” Ellison said. “Russian propagandists are already cheering the potential shutdown of USAID or a cut to their programs, for those reasons.”
Likewise, USAID has also rolled out energy projects in Indonesia, helping to deploy rooftop solar plants at airports and investing $200 million into a geothermal plant and two hydropower plants. Such efforts in the Indo-Pacific “pay dividends in strengthening relationships with allies and partners critical to that competition with China,” the Council on Strategic Risks, the parent institute of the Center for Climate and Security, wrote in a memo Tuesday.
That’s part of what makes the USAID whiplash so severe. Not only is the concern and uncertainty of the agency’s shutdown in complete opposition to the administration’s purported goal of “efficiency,” but Trump’s knee-jerk reaction to anything that suggests the idea of a U.S. handout — much less one that includes programs explicitly addressing “climate change” — runs counter to his stated goals of protecting U.S. troops and national security interests. USAID programs “are very cost-effective investments in terms of being a cent or less on the U.S. taxpayer dollars,” Ellison told me. “They’re paying for themselves over and over again in terms of humanitarian or military spending averted in the future.”
The American Clean Power Association wrote to its members about federal guidance that has been “widely variable and changing quickly.”
Chaos within the Trump administration has all but paralyzed environmental permitting decisions on solar and wind projects in crucial government offices, including sign-offs needed for projects on private lands.
According to an internal memo issued by the American Clean Power Association, the renewables trade association that represents the largest U.S. solar and wind developers, Trump’s Day One executive order putting a 60-day freeze on final decisions for renewable energy projects on federal lands has also ground key pre-decisional work in government offices responsible for wetlands and species protection to a halt. Renewables developers and their representatives in Washington have pressed the government for answers, yet received inconsistent information on its approach to renewables permitting that varies between lower level regional offices.
In other words, despite years of the Republican Party inching slowly toward “all of the above” energy and climate rhetoric that seemed to leave room for renewables, solar and wind developers have so far found themselves at times shut out of the second Trump administration.
ACP’s memo, which is dated February 3 and was sent to its members, states that companies are facing major challenges getting specific sign-offs and guidance from the Army Corps of Engineers, which handles wetlands permits, as well as the Fish and Wildlife Service, our nation’s primary office for endangered species and migratory bird regulation.
Federal environmental protection laws require that large construction projects — even those on state and private lands — seek direction from these agencies before building can commence. Wetlands permitting has long been the job of the Army Corps, which determines whether particularly wet areas are protected under the Clean Water Act. Wetlands have historically been a vector for opponents of large pipelines and mines, as such areas are often co-located with sensitive ecosystems that activists want to preserve.
Fish and Wildlife, meanwhile, often must weigh in on development far from federal acreage because, according to the agency, two-thirds of federally listed species have at least some habitat on private land. FWS also handles the conservation of bird species that migrate between the U.S. and Canada, which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Any changes to federal bird consultation could impact wind developers because turbine blades can kill birds.
Now, apparently, all those important decision-makers are getting harder to read — or even reach. Army Corps district activity has become “widely variable” and is “changing quickly,” per the memo, with at least two districts indicating that for “wind or solar projects” they “will not be issuing any JDs,” meaning jurisdictional determinations for federally protected wetlands — that is, they won’t even say whether federal wetlands are present at a construction site or not. According to the Army Corps, receiving a JD is optional, but it is nevertheless an essential tool for developers trying to avoid future legal problems in the permitting process.
In addition, emails from staff in FWS’ migratory birds protection office now apparently include a “boilerplate notice” that says the office “is unable to communicate with wind facilities regarding permitting at this time.”
Usually, renewables developers just get a simple go-ahead from the government saying that they don’t have wetlands or bird nests present and that therefore work can begin. Or maybe they do have one of those features at the construction site, so guardrails need to be put in place. Either way, this is supposed to be routine stuff unless a project is controversial, like the Keystone XL pipeline or Pebble Mine in Alaska.
It’s not immediately clear how solar and wind developers move forward in this situation if they are building in areas where wetlands or protected species even may be present. Violating wetlands and species protection laws carries legal penalties, and with the Trump administration arranging itself in such an openly hostile fashion against renewables developers, it’s probably not a good idea to break those laws.
Unfortunately for industry, the ACP memo describes a confusing state of affairs. “Written guidance from ACOE [Army Corps of Engineers] to industry has been expected but members have not seen it yet. Actions and communications from regional districts appear to be guided by internal ACOE emails,” the document states. Staffing within the Army Corps is “uncertain” due to questions over whether money from the Inflation Reduction Act — which provided funds to hire permitting personnel — will be “available to continue funding staff positions in some offices,” or whether permitting staff will take the administration’s voluntary resignation offer, which the memo claims “is apparently still actively being pushed on staff with emails.”
Meanwhile, at Fish and Wildlife, ACP’s members “have indicated some staff are still taking phone calls and responding to emails to answer questions, while others are not.”
As with a lot happening in the early era of Trump 2.0, much of the permitting mess is still unclear. We don’t know who is behind these difficulties because there have been no public policy or guidance changes from the Army Corps or Fish and Wildlife. Trump did order agencies to stop issuing “new or renewed approvals” for wind projects shortly after entering office, but the ACP memo describes something altogether different: agency staff potentially refusing to declare whether an approval is even necessary to build on state or private lands.
Another example of how confusing this is? Interior had issued a 60-day pause on final decisions for solar projects, but the Army Corps isn’t under Interior’s control — it’s part of the Defense Department.
It’s also unclear if the contagion of permitting confusion has spread to other agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration, which we previously reported must regularly weigh in on wind turbines for aviation safety purposes. As I reported before Inauguration Day, anti-wind activists urged the Trump administration to essentially weaponize environmental laws against wind energy projects.
ACP didn’t respond to a request for comment. I also reached out to the Army Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service, so I’ll let you know if and when I hear back from any of them.