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:
The effort to preserve the beloved landmark from sea-level rise epitomizes an existential struggle for historic waterfronts

When San Francisco’s Ferry Plaza Farmers Market is in full Saturday swing, one way to dodge the determined foodies and casual browsers is to retreat to the plaza just 30 steps south of the Ferry Building. It sits atop three tiers of dark-veined granite, accessible by two flights of nine stairs or a ramp that ascends along the water to a trio of ferry gates that, like the plaza, were completed in 2021.
The chosen height hints at what someday might be the norm — the elevation where San Francisco’s constructed shoreline will need to be to serve as a protective buffer between the natural bay and the developed city. Here, more than any place on today’s Embarcadero, you confront the existential predicament facing the Ferry Building, nearby piers, and resurrected waterfronts in other coastal American cities: sea level rise.
According to projections that were modeled by climate scientists in 2018, San Francisco Bay faces a 66% likelihood that average daily tides will rise 40 inches by 2100, with roughly half of the increase during the next 50 years and the pace accelerating after that. The same report includes an extreme but peer-reviewed scenario where the projected increase soars to 93 inches during that same period — making grim numbers profoundly worse.
So-called king tides already arrive monthly during the winter, a natural occurrence related to the moon’s gravitational pull that can send waves washing past Pier 14 into the Embarcadero’s protected bike lane. Behind Pier 5, water swells up and over the edge of the public walkway. For now, that occasional splash of excitement is less fearsome than fun — but if current forecasts are anywhere near accurate, future generations will face a double bind.
The threat isn’t just that tides might creep upward as temperatures increase. It’s that the extreme rainfall patterns we already experience will grow more intense, those destructive storms that in recent years have introduced terms like atmospheric rivers and bomb cyclones into conversations about the weather. For instance, if daily tides are a foot higher in 2050 than they are now — the “likely” projection — a major storm could surge 36 inches beyond where it would register today.
In the case of the Embarcadero, the hypothetical one-foot rise coupled with an “intense storm” — the sort that in the past might occur every five years — would send bay waters rushing toward the roadway in a dozen locations if the storm hit when winds were brisk and the tide was high. Kick the downpour’s fervor to the scale of the bomb cyclone that hit the Bay Area in October 2021 — a day-long deluge that was the equivalent of what scientists call a 25-year storm — and the Embarcadero could be closed for nearly a mile between Folsom Street and Pier 9. Water spilling across the roadway could flow down into the BART and Muni subway beneath Market Street, potentially paralyzing both systems.
The new plaza and the elevated ferry gates might rebuke the surging tides to come, but the landmark next door would be more vulnerable than ever. The Ferry Building has ridden out many perils since opening day in 1898, from earthquakes and the onslaught of automobiles to political tumult, misguided renovations, and the wear and tear of urban life. Now it faces the implacable though seemingly far-off threat of rising waters, as if nature was determined to restore the marshes and tidal flats that long-dead San Franciscans covered and forgot.
The addition of the granite plaza is an indicator of the danger facing the icon to its north. And it’s not as if our hefty landmark with that vaulted concrete foundation can be jacked up out of harm’s way.
Or can it?

Steven Reel headed west from Philadelphia in 1992 to earn a structural engineering degree at Stanford University because, he says now, “structural engineering means ‘earthquakes’ at Stanford, and earthquakes make structural engineering a lot more interesting.” The Bay Area was a good place to live, and local governments were investing heavily in seismic upgrades after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. In 2010, Reel successfully applied for a job at the Port of San Francisco and, to his surprise, grew intrigued by the historic aspects of making an urban shoreline function in the here and now.
“I’d start studying old engineering drawings for projects and then go down the rabbit hole,” recalls Reel, an easygoing bureaucrat with a beard that approached Rasputin-like proportions during the pandemic (he since has trimmed it back). He also began to notice regional planners stressing sea level rise in meetings.
His first project at the port was Brannan Street Wharf, where two ramshackle piers midway between the Bay Bridge and the ballpark were torn out and replaced by a four-hundred-foot-long triangular green. The response to climate concerns involved a slight upward incline from the Embarcadero promenade and a concrete lip along the edge (the same move since used for the plaza near the Ferry Building).
There was another natural threat to consider — the possibility that a tremor on the scale of the Great 1906 San Francisco Earthquake could strike again. Would the Ferry Building and the seawall hold, as before? Or would the three-mile-long agglomeration of boulders and concrete give way after all this time? Reel found himself with a new job title — manager of the seawall program — and responsibilities that included a $450,000 study with consultants being told to diagnose the barrier’s health and prescribe possible remedies.
The findings, released in April 2016, answered some questions and posed a host of others.
The good news is that even with a cataclysmic earthquake, “complete failure of the seawall is unlikely.” The rocks and boulders that form a dike beneath the concrete wouldn’t scatter like marbles. The Financial District wouldn’t be sucked into the bay toward Oakland. But the combination of sandy fill atop soft mud, behind an aged barrier with thousands of potentially moving parts of varying size, is a dangerous combination. The fill was “subject to liquefaction,” the report confirmed, making it likely that the seawall could slump and lurch outward.
“A repeat of the 1906 earthquake is predicted to cause as much as $1b in damage and $1.3b in disruption costs,” the report declared. Better to strengthen the entire three-mile seawall before a disaster struck — though the cost estimates to do this were “on the order of $2 to $3 billion.” The consultants also emphasized that even with an upgraded seawall, the slow-moving threat posed by sea level rise “will necessitate intervention ... over the next 100 years.” Figure that in, and the combined price tag approached $5 billion.
The city approached voters with a $425 million bond in 2018 to fund the first round of projects; smartly, the campaign emphasized seismic concerns, lightening the ominous message with such creative touches as a neighborhood brewpub’s limited-release sour beer dubbed “Seawall’s Sea Puppy.” The bond passed with 83% support. “The earthquake message resonates,” Reel says. “Without it, I don’t think all this would have moved forward as it did.”
It makes sense to tackle the easiest fixes early, given the seismic threats posed to the Bay Area by the San Andreas and other faults. Breaking a daunting future into manageable parts also allows the Port and City Hall to shift attention from the more eye-popping aspects of climate adaptation — such as how potions of the Embarcadero might need to be raised as much as seven feet to prepare for 2100’s more extreme projected water levels.
Which leads us back to the Ferry Building.
As so often has been the case during the landmark’s history, far more is at stake than one particular structure. If the Ferry Building in its heyday represented San Francisco’s prominence within the region and beyond, in the 21st century it embodies how urban waterfronts can be reinvented without sacrificing their past identities. At the same time, the building remains essentially the same as it was in 1898 — a heavy structure of concrete and steel that covers two acres and rises from a foundation atop bundled piles of tree trunks.
The assumption for the past 25 years has been that the landmark’s impressive performance in 1906 and 1989 should ensure similar resilience when the next big earthquake hits. But the most recent geotechnical exam revealed a weak link: the section of the seawall behind the Ferry Building rests in a trench filled with liquefiable sand rather than the rubble that underlies almost everything else. That detail places “the 125-year-old Ferry Building Seawall, building substructure, and surrounding piers at risk of damage in large earthquakes,” according to the most recent Port update.
This isn’t just a concern for architecture buffs. San Francisco’s disaster relief plans treat the outdoor spaces around the landmark as crucial spots for retreat and regrouping. In a worst-case scenario where the Bay Bridge is knocked out of commission, as was the case in 1989, reliable access to a functioning ferry system will be crucial for evacuating people from the downtown scene safely. The new plaza can also serve as a staging area for bringing medical aid and supplies into the city over the water. Regular people who need to connect with family and friends know there won’t be confusion if someone says “let’s find each other at the Ferry Building.”
One solution could be to erect an entirely new seawall around the edge of the Ferry Building’s foundation, in essence creating a basement beneath it. And if you’re doing that, it’s only one more step — albeit sure to be costly and complex — to raise the entire building by several feet and resolve the challenge of sea level rise for another lifetime or two.
“With the Ferry Building, the one thing I know about it is that it has to be saved … it has such a strong identification with the city,” Elaine Forbes, the executive director for the Port, says. “So I talked myself into okaying this big expenditure.”

Realistically, adaptation planning in San Francisco and other waterfront cities will involve a variety of responses at a variety of scales. But the situation facing the Ferry Building, as at so many times in its history, is unique unto itself. This time around, the task is to remake a bustling civic icon so that life seemingly goes on as before. If anyone has challenged the need to invest what likely will be hundreds of millions of dollars to save a 125-year-old structure, the argument has gained no traction.
“The price would have to be really, really high before anything would think twice” about whether the Ferry Building’s salvation is more trouble than it’s worth, Reel says. He describes how during the public discussions on what to do about the Embarcadero, attendees would be asked to list priorities. What are you concerned about? What do you love?
In the latter category, Reel recalls, “the Ferry Building kept getting named. People want to see it forever.”
This still leaves an array of unanswered questions. How to decide how big of an engineering gamble to take. Whether to raise the structure, as implausible as that sounds, or build a new seawall to the east that would destroy the immediacy of the connection to the water. And what becomes of the tenants inside the building, especially the locally based merchants, if the building once again becomes a construction zone.
In a much different context, one San Franciscan offered a fatalistic take on what the future might hold: Lawrence Ferlinghetti.
Four years before his death in 2021, still living in North Beach, Ferlinghetti sat down in a neighborhood café to talk with a Washington Post writer about the beat era, the 97-year-old poet’s life, and his enduring love for the city that he embraced long ago. At one point, the writer asked Ferlinghetti about what might happen after he was gone.
“It’s all going to be underwater in 100 years or maybe even 50,” Ferlinghetti said with a half-smiled shrug. “The Embarcadero is one of the greatest esplanades in the world. On the weekends, thousands of people strut up and down like it’s the Ramblas in Barcelona. But it’ll all be underwater.”
This article was excerpted and condensed from John King’s book Portal: San Francisco’s Ferry Building and the Reinvention of American Cities, available on Nov. 7 from W. W. Norton & Company ©2023.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Citrine Informatics has been applying machine learning to materials discovery for years. Now more advanced models are giving the tech a big boost.
When ChatGPT launched three years ago, it became abundantly clear that the power of generative artificial intelligence had the capacity to extend far beyond clever chatbots. Companies raised huge amounts of funding based on the idea that this new, more powerful AI could solve fundamental problems in science and medicine — design new proteins, discover breakthrough drugs, or invent new battery chemistries.
Citrine Informatics, however, has largely kept its head down. The startup was founded long before the AI boom, back in 2013, with the intention of using simple old machine learning to speed up the development of more advanced, sustainable materials. These days Citrine is doing the same thing, but with neural networks and transformers, the architecture that undergirds the generative AI revolution.
“The technology transition we’re going through right now is pretty massive,” Greg Mulholland, Citrine’s founder and CEO, told me. “But the core underlying goal of the company is still the same: help scientists identify the experiments that will get them to their material outcome as fast as possible.”
Rather than developing its own novel materials, Citrine operates on a software-as-a-service model, selling its platform to companies including Rolls-Royce, EMD Electronics, and chemicals giant LyondellBassell. While a SaaS product may be less glamorous than independently discovering a breakthrough compound that enables something like a room-temperature superconductor or an ultra-high-density battery, Citrine’s approach has already surfaced commercially relevant materials across a variety of sectors, while the boldest promises of generative AI for science remain distant dreams.
“You can think of it as science versus engineering,” Mulholland told me. “A lot of science is being done. Citrine is definitely the best in kind of taking it to the engineering level and coming to a product outcome rather than a scientific discovery.” Citrine has helped to develop everything from bio-based lotion ingredients to replace petrochemical-derived ones, to plastic-free detergents, to more sustainable fire-resistant home insulation, to PFAS-free food packaging, to UV-resistant paints.
On Wednesday, the company unveiled two new platform capabilities that it says will take its approach to the next level. The first is essentially an advanced LLM-powered filing system that organizes and structures unwieldy materials and chemicals datasets from across a company. The second is an AI framework informed by an extensive repository of chemistry, physics, and materials knowledge. It can ingest a company’s existing data, and, even if the overall volume is small, use it to create a list of hundreds of potential new materials optimized for factors such as sustainability, durability, weight, manufacturability, or whatever other outcomes the company is targeting.
The platform is neither purely generative nor purely predictive. Instead, Mulholland explained, companies can choose to use Citrine’s tools “in a more generative mode” if they want to explore broadly and open up the field of possible materials discoveries, or in a more “optimized” mode that stays narrowly focused on the parameters they set. “What we find is you need a healthy blend of the two,” he told me.
The novel compounds the model spits out still need to be synthesized and tested by humans. “What I tell people is, any plane made of materials designed exclusively by Citrine and never tested is not a plane I’m getting on,” Mulholland told me. The goal isn’t to achieve perfection right out of the lab, but rather to optimize the experiments companies end up having to do. “We still need to prove materials in the real world, because the real world will complicate it.”
Indeed it will. For one thing, while AI is capable of churning out millions of hypothetical materials — as a tool developed by Google DeepMind did in 2023 — materials scientists have since shown that many are just variants of known compounds, while others are unstable, unable to be synthesized, or otherwise irrelevant under real world conditions.
Such failures likely stem, in part, from another common limitation of AI models trained solely on publicly available materials and chemicals data: Academic research tends to report only successful outcomes, omitting data on what didn’t work and which compounds weren’t viable. That can lead models to be overly optimistic about the magnitude and potential of possible materials solutions and generate unrealistic “discoveries” that may have already been tested and rejected.
Because Citrine’s platform is deployed within customer organizations, it can largely sidestep this problem by tuning its model on niche, proprietary datasets. These datasets are small when compared with the vast public repositories used to train Citrine’s base model, but the granular information they contain about prior experiments — both successes and failures — has proven critical to bringing new discoveries to market.
While the holy grail for materials science may be a model trained on all the world’s relevant data — public and private, positive and negative — at this point that’s just a fantasy, one of Citrine’s investors, Mark Cupta of Prelude Ventures, told me over email. “It’s hard to get buy-in from the entire material development world to make an open-source model that pulls in data from across the field.”
Citrine’s last raise, which Prelude co-led, came at the very beginning of 2023, as the AI wave was still gathering momentum. But Mulholland said there’s no rush to raise additional capital — in fact, he expects Citrine to turn a profit in the next year or so.
That milestone would strongly validate the company’s strategy, which banks on steady revenue from its subscription-based model to compensate for the fact that it doesn’t own the intellectual property for the materials it helps develop. While Mulholland told me that many players in this space are trying to “invent new materials and patent them and try to sell them like drugs,” Citriene is able to “invent things much more quickly, in a more realistic way than the pie in the sky, hoping for a Nobel Prize [approach].”
Citrines is also careful to assure that its model accounts for real world constraints such as regulations and production bottlenecks. Say a materials company is creating an aluminum alloy for an automaker, Mulholland explained — it might be critical to stay within certain elemental bounds. If the company were to add in novel elements, the automaker would likely want to put its new compound through a rigorous testing process, which would be annoying if it’s looking to get to market as quickly as possible. Better, perhaps, to tinker around the edges of what’s well understood.
In fact, Mulholland told me it’s often these marginal improvements that initially bring customers into the fold, convincing them that this whole AI-for-materials thing is more than just hype. “The first project is almost always like, make the adhesive a little bit stickier — because that’s a good way to prove to these skeptical scientists that AI is real and here to stay,” he said. “And then they use that as justification to invest further and further back in their product development pipeline, such that their whole product portfolio can be optimized by AI.”
Overall, the company says that its new framework can speed up materials development by 80%. So while Mulholland and Citrine overall may not be going for the Nobel in Chemistry, don’t doubt for a second that they’re trying to lead a fundamental shift in the way consumer products are designed.
“I’m as bullish as I can possibly be on AI in science,” Mulholland told me. “It is the most exciting time to be a scientist since Newton. But I think that the gap between scientific discovery and realized business is much larger than a lot of AI folks think.”
Plus more insights from Heatmap’s latest event Washington, D.C.
At Heatmap’s event, “Supercharging the Grid,” two members of the House of Representatives — a California Democrat and a Colorado Republican — talked about their shared political fight to loosen implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act to accelerate energy deployment.
Representatives Gabe Evans and Scott Peters spoke with Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer at the Washington, D.C., gathering about how permitting reform is faring in Congress.
“The game in the 1970s was to stop things, but if you’re a climate activist now, the game is to build things,” said Peters, who worked as an environmental lawyer for many years. “My proposal is, get out of the way of everything and we win. Renewables win. And NEPA is a big delay.”
NEPA requires that the federal government review the environmental implications of its actions before finalizing them, permitting decisions included. The 50-year-old environmental law has already undergone several rounds of reform, including efforts under both Presidents Biden and Trump to remove redundancies and reduce the size and scope of environmental analyses conducted under the law. But bottlenecks remain — completing the highest level of review under the law still takes four-and-a-half years, on average. Just before Thanksgiving, the House Committee on Natural Resources advanced the SPEED Act, which aims to ease that congestion by creating shortcuts for environmental reviews, limiting judicial review of the final assessments, and preventing current and future presidents from arbitrarily rescinding permits, subject to certain exceptions.
Evans framed the problem in terms of keeping up with countries like China on building energy infrastructure. “I’ve seen how other parts of the world produce energy, produce other things,” said Evans. “We build things cleaner and more responsibly here than really anywhere else on the planet.”
Both representatives agreed that the SPEED Act on its own wouldn’t solve all the United States’ energy issues. Peters hinted at other permitting legislation in the works.
“We want to take that SPEED Act on the NEPA reform and marry it with specific energy reforms, including transmission,” said Peters.
Next, Neil Chatterjee, a former Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, explained to Rob another regulatory change that could affect the pace of energy infrastructure buildout: a directive from the Department of Energy to FERC to come up with better ways of connecting large new sources of electricity demand — i.e. data centers — to the grid.
“This issue is all about data centers and AI, but it goes beyond data centers and AI,” said Chatterjee. “It deals with all of the pressures that we are seeing in terms of demand from the grid from cloud computing and quantum computing, streaming services, crypto and Bitcoin mining, reshoring of manufacturing, vehicle electrification, building electrification, semiconductor manufacturing.”
Chatterjee argued that navigating load growth to support AI data centers should be a bipartisan issue. He expressed hope that AI could help bridge the partisan divide.
“We have become mired in this politics of, if you’re for fossil fuels, you are of the political right. If you’re for clean energy and climate solutions, you’re the political left,” he said. “I think AI is going to be the thing that busts us out of it.”
Updating and upgrading the grid to accommodate data centers has grown more urgent in the face of drastically rising electricity demand projections.
Marsden Hanna, Google’s head of energy and dust policy, told Heatmap’s Jillian Goodman that the company is eyeing transmission technology to connect its own data centers to the grid faster.
“We looked at advanced transition technologies, high performance conductors,” said Hanna. “We see that really as just an incredibly rapid, no-brainer opportunity.”
Advanced transmission technologies, otherwise known as ATTs, could help expand the existing grid’s capacity, freeing up space for some of the load growth that economy-wide electrification and data centers would require. Building new transmission lines, however, requires permits — the central issue that panelists kept returning to throughout the event.
Devin Hartman, director of energy and environmental policy at the R Street Institute, told Jillian that investors are nervous that already-approved permits could be revoked — something the solar industry has struggled with under the Trump administration.
“Half the battle now is not just getting the permits on time and getting projects to break ground,” said Hartman. “It’s also permitting permanence.”
This event was made possible by the American Council on Renewable Energy’s Macro Grid Initiative.
On gas turbine backorders, Europe’s not-so-green deal, and Iranian cloud seeding
Current conditions: Up to 10 inches of rain in the Cascades threatens mudslides, particularly in areas where wildfires denuded the landscape of the trees whose roots once held soil in place • South Africa has issued extreme fire warnings for Northern Cape, Western Cape, and Eastern Cape • Still roiling from last week’s failed attempt at a military coup, Benin’s capital of Cotonou is in the midst of a streak of days with temperatures over 90 degrees Fahrenheit and no end in sight.

Exxon Mobil Corp. plans to cut planned spending on low-carbon projects by a third, joining much of the rest of its industry in refocusing on fossil fuels. The nation’s largest oil producer said it would increase its earnings and cash flow by $5 billion by 2030. The company projected earnings to grow by 13% each year without any increase in capital spending. But the upstream division, which includes exploration and production, is expected to bring in $14 billion in earnings growth compared to 2024. The key projects The Wall Street Journal listed in the Permian Basin, Guyana and at liquified natural gas sites would total $4 billion in earnings growth alone over the next five years. The announcement came a day before the Department of the Interior auctioned off $279 million of leases across 80 million acres of federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
Speaking of oil and water, early Wednesday U.S. armed forces seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela in what The New York Times called “a dramatic escalation in President Trump’s pressure campaign against Nicolás Maduro.” When asked what would become of the vessel's oil, Trump said at the White House, “Well, we keep it, I guess.”
The Federal Reserve slashed its key benchmark interest rate for the third time this year. The 0.25 percentage point cut was meant to calibrate the borrowing costs to stay within a range between 3.5% and 3.75%. The 9-3 vote by the central bank’s board of governors amounted to what Wall Street calls a hawkish cut, a move to prop up a cooling labor market while signaling strong concerns about future downward adjustments that’s considered so rare CNBC previously questioned whether it could be real. But it’s good news for clean energy. As Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote after the September rate cut, lower borrowing costs “may provide some relief to renewables developers and investors, who are especially sensitive to financing costs.” But it likely isn’t enough to wipe out the effects of Trump’s tariffs and tax credit phaseouts.
GE Vernova plans to increase its capacity to manufacture gas turbines by 20 gigawatts once assembly line expansions are completed in the middle of next year. But in a presentation to investors this week, the company said it’s already sold out of new gas turbines all the way through 2028, and has less than 10 gigawatts of equipment left to sell for 2029. It’s no wonder supersonic jet startups, as I wrote about in yesterday’s newsletter, are now eyeing a near-term windfall by getting into the gas turbine business.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The European Union will free more than 80% of the companies from environmental reporting rules under a deal struck this week. The agreement between EU institutions marks what Politico Europe called a “major legislative victory” for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who has sought to make the bloc more economically self-sufficient by cutting red tape for business in her second term in office. The rollback is also a win for Trump, whose administration heavily criticized the EU’s green rules. It’s also a victory for the U.S. president’s far-right allies in Europe. The deal fractured the coalition that got the German politician reelected to the EU’s top job, forcing her center-right faction to team up with the far right to win enough votes for secure victory.
Ravaged by drought, Iran is carrying out cloud-seeding operations in a bid to increase rainfall amid what the Financial Times clocked as “the worst water crisis in six decades.” On Tuesday, Abbas Aliabadi, the energy minister, said the country had begun a fresh round of injecting crystals into clouds using planes, drones, and ground-based launchers. The country has even started developing drones specifically tailored to cloud seeding.
The effort comes just weeks after the Islamic Republic announced that it “no longer has a choice” but to move its capital city as ongoing strain on water supplies and land causes Tehran to sink by nearly one foot per year. As I wrote in this newsletter, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian called the situation a “catastrophe” and “a dark future.”
The end of suburban kids whiffing diesel exhaust in the back of stuffy, rumbling old yellow school buses is nigh. The battery-powered bus startup Highland Electric Fleets just raised $150 million in an equity round from Aiga Capital Partners to deploy its fleets of buses and trucks across the U.S., Axios reported. In a press release, the company said its vehicles would hit the streets by next year.