ZapBatt and Toshiba are partnering to unlock proven lithium titanium oxide (LTO) battery technology for micro-mobility. In a press release emailed to me, ZapBatt shared that it’s merging its proprietary artificial intelligence technology and next-gen battery hardware with Toshiba’s lithium titanium oxide battery cells.
The goal is to create a new battery option for the micro-mobility marketplace. This will enable LTO batteries to be faster, smarter, and more economical while allowing for real-time battery management and optimization.
Three challenges of using Lithium Titanium Oxide chemistry in batteries solved

Photo credit: ZapBatt
There are three challenges of using LTO chemistry in batteries that ZapBatt is helping Toshiba solve.
- Chips. At the time, chips didn’t exist to work with LTO, however, ZapBatt’s custom LTO battery management system (BMS) is changing this. The BMS works at the unique voltages of LTO with the ability to be re-configured to adapt as the cell chemistry grows. This enables a programmable chip that works with other chemistries and voltages.
- Voltage. ZapBatt has a bi-directional adaptive terminal voltage (BATV) technology. This allows the battery system’s voltage control to be digitally controlled with software. Think of a universal adapter that allows LTO batteries to be a one-for-one swap with any lithium-ion chemistry without the need for modification to the system. The benefit is the ability to re-configure batteries for other applications at software speed.
- Energy Density. ZapBatt will use integrated AI which allows the battery to improve the system’s performance. The AI will analyze how energy is being used. One example is enhanced regenerative braking in e-bikes.
Toshiba & ZapBatt Statements
Greg Mack, Toshiba’s Vice President and General Manager of the Power Electronics Division shared the following statement about the new partnership.
“ZapBatt unlocked the potential of Toshiba’s LTO chemistry for a variety of industries and new markets with disruptive technology, moving away from the ‘miracle battery’ trap and providing a real solution hitting the market today.”
“With ZapBatt’s hardware and software, and our LTO chemistry, there is no other solution as fast, safe, and cost-effective on the market.”
Charlie Welch, CEO and Co-Founder of ZapBatt also shared a statement.
“For global carbon reduction and electrification, we need better battery solutions now, not in ten years. To address this problem, we worked with Toshiba to allow lithium titanium oxide to come alive, bridge into new markets quickly, and provide maximum economic and environmental benefit.”
“Unlike other chemistries, lithium titanium oxide is very efficient in a variety of conditions, not just on a lab bench. It’s like the Seabiscuit of batteries.”
How Toshiba’s Lithium Titanium Oxide Cells Will Work

The company noted that the cells are designed for fast charging and high-power environments with a minimal decrease in function–even after thousands of charges and uses.
These cells are ideal for micro-mobility applications and will provide up to a 100% usable charge without shortening the cycle life. They also perform in freezing temperatures as low as -30 degrees celsius.
The LTO cells also reduce operating expenses and e-waste. And they eliminate the risk of fire with ZapBatt’s LTO system. ZapBatt noted that its LTO batteries have virtually no risk for self-thermal runaway.
In addition to this, ZapBatt pointed out that its combination of machine learning and proprietary hardware will continuously improve battery performance. The software analyzes 26 data points that illustrate how the battery performs to improve charging operations.
ZapBatt’s New Hardware Solution

ZapBatt built a new hardware solution for its LTO BATV system. The BATV system allows the system to control the battery voltage input and output all digitally with software. This allows LTO batteries to integrate with a variety of applications.
Amiad Zionpur, ZapBatt’s Chief Operating Officer shared some thoughts about this technology.
“ZapBatt’s bi-directional adaptive terminal voltage (BATV) technology allows the battery to reconfigure itself based on the customer’s needs, essentially making it a universal adapter that has the potential to change the battery landscape completely.”
“Because of this unique ability, the e-bike battery can be used in many different applications, from micro-mobility to consumer products.”
My Interview With ZapBatt CEO, Charlie Welch
In June, I interviewed Charlie for CleanTechnica in a two-part series. In the first part, which you can read here, Charlie shared how he got started with ZapBatt, the difference between ZapBatt and the overall battery industry, and charging in just 15 minutes.
In the second part of our interview, which you can read here, we spoke about overlooked technologies, the industries that ZapBatt wants to impact, and availability and sustainability.
News
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
News
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026