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.
Paradise, California, is snatching up high-risk properties to create a defensive perimeter and prevent the town from burning again.
The 2018 Camp Fire was the deadliest wildfire in California’s history, wiping out 90% of the structures in the mountain town of Paradise and killing at least 85 people in a matter of hours. Investigations afterward found that Paradise’s town planners had ignored warnings of the fire risk to its residents and forgone common-sense preparations that would have saved lives. In the years since, the Camp Fire has consequently become a cautionary tale for similar communities in high-risk wildfire areas — places like Chinese Camp, a small historic landmark in the Sierra Nevada foothills that dramatically burned to the ground last week as part of the nearly 14,000-acre TCU September Lightning Complex.
More recently, Paradise has also become a model for how a town can rebuild wisely after a wildfire. At least some of that is due to the work of Dan Efseaff, the director of the Paradise Recreation and Park District, who has launched a program to identify and acquire some of the highest-risk, hardest-to-access properties in the Camp Fire burn scar. Though he has a limited total operating budget of around $5.5 million and relies heavily on the charity of local property owners (he’s currently in the process of applying for a $15 million grant with a $5 million match for the program) Efseaff has nevertheless managed to build the beginning of a defensible buffer of managed parkland around Paradise that could potentially buy the town time in the case of a future wildfire.
In order to better understand how communities can build back smarter after — or, ideally, before — a catastrophic fire, I spoke with Efseaff about his work in Paradise and how other communities might be able to replicate it. Our conversation has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
Do you live in Paradise? Were you there during the Camp Fire?
I actually live in Chico. We’ve lived here since the mid-‘90s, but I have a long connection to Paradise; I’ve worked for the district since 2017. I’m also a sea kayak instructor and during the Camp Fire, I was in South Carolina for a training. I was away from the phone until I got back at the end of the day and saw it blowing up with everything.
I have triplet daughters who were attending Butte College at the time, and they needed to be evacuated. There was a lot of uncertainty that day. But it gave me some perspective, because I couldn’t get back for two days. It gave me a chance to think, “Okay, what’s our response going to be?” Looking two days out, it was like: That would have been payroll, let’s get people together, and then let’s figure out what we’re going to do two weeks and two months from now.
It also got my mind thinking about what we would have done going backwards. If you’d had two weeks to prepare, you would have gotten your go-bag together, you’d have come up with your evacuation route — that type of thing. But when you run the movie backwards on what you would have done differently if you had two years or two decades, it would include prepping the landscape, making some safer community defensible space. That’s what got me started.
Was it your idea to buy up the high-risk properties in the burn scar?
I would say I adapted it. Everyone wants to say it was their idea, but I’ll tell you where it came from: Pre-fire, the thinking was that it would make sense for the town to have a perimeter trail from a recreation standpoint. But I was also trying to pitch it as a good idea from a fuel standpoint, so that if there was a wildfire, you could respond to it. Certainly, the idea took on a whole other dimension after the Camp Fire.
I’m a restoration ecologist, so I’ve done a lot of river floodplain work. There are a lot of analogies there. The trend has been to give nature a little bit more room: You’re not going to stop a flood, but you can minimize damage to human infrastructure. Putting levees too close to the river makes them more prone to failing and puts people at risk — but if you can set the levee back a little bit, it gives the flood waters room to go through. That’s why I thought we need a little bit of a buffer in Paradise and some protection around the community. We need a transition between an area that is going to burn, and that we can let burn, but not in a way that is catastrophic.
How hard has it been to find willing sellers? Do most people in the area want to rebuild — or need to because of their mortgages?
Ironically, the biggest challenge for us is finding adequate funding. A lot of the property we have so far has been donated to us. It’s probably upwards of — oh, let’s see, at least half a dozen properties have been donated, probably close to 200 acres at this point.
We are applying for some federal grants right now, and we’ll see how that goes. What’s evolved quite a bit on this in recent years, though, is that — because we’ve done some modeling — instead of thinking of the buffer as areas that are managed uniformly around the community, we’re much more strategic. These fire events are wind-driven, and there are only a couple of directions where the wind blows sufficiently long enough and powerful enough for the other conditions to fall into play. That’s not to say other events couldn’t happen, but we’re going after the most likely events that would cause catastrophic fires, and that would be from the Diablo winds, or north winds, that come through our area. That was what happened in the Camp Fire scenario, and another one our models caught what sure looked a lot like the [2024] Park Fire.
One thing that I want to make clear is that some people think, “Oh, this is a fire break. It’s devoid of vegetation.” No, what we’re talking about is a well-managed habitat. These are shaded fuel breaks. You maintain the big trees, you get rid of the ladder fuels, and you get rid of the dead wood that’s on the ground. We have good examples with our partners, like the Butte Fire Safe Council, on how this works, and it looks like it helped protect the community of Cohasset during the Park Fire. They did some work on some strips there, and the fire essentially dropped to the ground before it came to Paradise Lake. You didn’t have an aerial tanker dropping retardant, you didn’t have a $2-million-per-day fire crew out there doing work. It was modest work done early and in the right place that actually changed the behavior of the fire.
Tell me a little more about the modeling you’ve been doing.
We looked at fire pathways with a group called XyloPlan out of the Bay Area. The concept is that you simulate a series of ignitions with certain wind conditions, terrain, and vegetation. The model looked very much like a Camp Fire scenario; it followed the same pathway, going towards the community in a little gulch that channeled high winds. You need to interrupt that pathway — and that doesn’t necessarily mean creating an area devoid of vegetation, but if you have these areas where the fire behavior changes and drops down to the ground, then it slows the travel. I found this hard to believe, but in the modeling results, in a scenario like the Camp Fire, it could buy you up to eight hours. With modern California firefighting, you could empty out the community in a systematic way in that time. You could have a vigorous fire response. You could have aircraft potentially ready. It’s a game-changing situation, rather than the 30 minutes Paradise had when the Camp Fire started.
How does this work when you’re dealing with private property owners, though? How do you convince them to move or donate their land?
We’re a Park and Recreation District so we don’t have regulatory authority. We are just trying to run with a good idea with the properties that we have so far — those from willing donors mostly, but there have been a couple of sales. If we’re unable to get federal funding or state support, though, I ultimately think this idea will still have to be here — whether it’s five, 10, 15, or 50 years from now. We have to manage this area in a comprehensive way.
Private property rights are very important, and we don’t want to impinge on that. And yet, what a person does on their property has a huge impact on the 30,000 people who may be downwind of them. It’s an unusual situation: In a hurricane, if you have a hurricane-rated roof and your neighbor doesn’t, and theirs blows off, you feel sorry for your neighbor but it’s probably not going to harm your property much. In a wildfire, what your neighbor has done with the wood, or how they treat vegetation, has a significant impact on your home and whether your family is going to survive. It’s a fundamentally different kind of event than some of the other disasters we look at.
Do you have any advice for community leaders who might want to consider creating buffer zones or something similar to what you’re doing in Paradise?
Start today. You have to think about these things with some urgency, but they’re not something people think about until it happens. Paradise, for many decades, did not have a single escaped wildfire make it into the community. Then, overnight, the community is essentially wiped out. But in so many places, these events are foreseeable; we’re just not wired to think about them or prepare for them.
Buffers around communities make a lot of sense, even from a road network standpoint. Even from a trash pickup standpoint. You don’t think about this, but if your community is really strung out, making it a little more thoughtfully laid out also makes it more economically viable to provide services to people. Some things we look for now are long roads that don’t have any connections — that were one-way in and no way out. I don’t think [the traffic jams and deaths in] Paradise would have happened with what we know now, but I kind of think [authorities] did know better beforehand. It just wasn’t economically viable at the time; they didn’t think it was a big deal, but they built the roads anyway. We can be doing a lot of things smarter.
A war of attrition is now turning in opponents’ favor.
A solar developer’s defeat in Massachusetts last week reveals just how much stronger project opponents are on the battlefield after the de facto repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Last week, solar developer PureSky pulled five projects under development around the western Massachusetts town of Shutesbury. PureSky’s facilities had been in the works for years and would together represent what the developer has claimed would be one of the state’s largest solar projects thus far. In a statement, the company laid blame on “broader policy and regulatory headwinds,” including the state’s existing renewables incentives not keeping pace with rising costs and “federal policy updates,” which PureSky said were “making it harder to finance projects like those proposed near Shutesbury.”
But tucked in its press release was an admission from the company’s vice president of development Derek Moretz: this was also about the town, which had enacted a bylaw significantly restricting solar development that the company was until recently fighting vigorously in court.
“There are very few areas in the Commonwealth that are feasible to reach its clean energy goals,” Moretz stated. “We respect the Town’s conservation go als, but it is clear that systemic reforms are needed for Massachusetts to source its own energy.”
This stems from a story that probably sounds familiar: after proposing the projects, PureSky began reckoning with a burgeoning opposition campaign centered around nature conservation. Led by a fresh opposition group, Smart Solar Shutesbury, activists successfully pushed the town to drastically curtail development in 2023, pointing to the amount of forest acreage that would potentially be cleared in order to construct the projects. The town had previously not permitted facilities larger than 15 acres, but the fresh change went further, essentially banning battery storage and solar projects in most areas.
When this first happened, the state Attorney General’s office actually had PureSky’s back, challenging the legality of the bylaw that would block construction. And PureSky filed a lawsuit that was, until recently, ongoing with no signs of stopping. But last week, shortly after the Treasury Department unveiled its rules for implementing Trump’s new tax and spending law, which basically repealed the Inflation Reduction Act, PureSky settled with the town and dropped the lawsuit – and the projects went away along with the court fight.
What does this tell us? Well, things out in the country must be getting quite bleak for solar developers in areas with strident and locked-in opposition that could be costly to fight. Where before project developers might have been able to stomach the struggle, money talks – and the dollars are starting to tell executives to lay down their arms.
The picture gets worse on the macro level: On Monday, the Solar Energy Industries Association released a report declaring that federal policy changes brought about by phasing out federal tax incentives would put the U.S. at risk of losing upwards of 55 gigawatts of solar project development by 2030, representing a loss of more than 20 percent of the project pipeline.
But the trade group said most of that total – 44 gigawatts – was linked specifically to the Trump administration’s decision to halt federal permitting for renewable energy facilities, a decision that may impact generation out west but has little-to-know bearing on most large solar projects because those are almost always on private land.
Heatmap Pro can tell us how much is at stake here. To give you a sense of perspective, across the U.S., over 81 gigawatts worth of renewable energy projects are being contested right now, with non-Western states – the Northeast, South and Midwest – making up almost 60% of that potential capacity.
If historical trends hold, you’d expect a staggering 49% of those projects to be canceled. That would be on top of the totals SEIA suggests could be at risk from new Trump permitting policies.
I suspect the rate of cancellations in the face of project opposition will increase. And if this policy landscape is helping activists kill projects in blue states in desperate need of power, like Massachusetts, then the future may be more difficult to swallow than we can imagine at the moment.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewables.
1. Wells County, Indiana – One of the nation’s most at-risk solar projects may now be prompting a full on moratorium.
2. Clark County, Ohio – Another Ohio county has significantly restricted renewable energy development, this time with big political implications.
3. Daviess County, Kentucky – NextEra’s having some problems getting past this county’s setbacks.
4. Columbia County, Georgia – Sometimes the wealthy will just say no to a solar farm.
5. Ottawa County, Michigan – A proposed battery storage facility in the Mitten State looks like it is about to test the state’s new permitting primacy law.