News
Rivian is prioritizing its Amazon delivery vans over R1T production: report
The production and impending deliveries of the Rivian R1T may be catching most of the electric vehicle community’s attention these days, but it appears that the truck maker may actually have a different priority in the near term. As per a recent report, Rivian is prioritizing the production of Amazon’s electric delivery van rather than the R1T pickup and the R1S SUV.
A Bloomberg report noted that Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe has decided to focus Rivian’s production capabilities on its Amazon delivery van project, citing people familiar with the matter. The publication’s sources claimed that the CEO is looking to build about 300 Electric Delivery Vans (“EDV”) by the end of this year, with the first 10,000 units due by the end of 2022. The entire 100,000 order is expected by the end of the decade. In comparison, R1T production is anticipated to run “at a trickle,” at least in the near term.
Prioritizing Amazon delivery van production seems to be a strategic decision for Rivian. After all, having Amazon as a customer is a notable advantage in the electric vehicle sector. Without its Amazon delivery vans, sources reportedly familiar with Rivian’s finances have told Bloomberg that it would be extremely challenging to hit the company’s target valuation of $80 billion when it goes for its initial public offering.
Rivian’s recent S-1 filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission all but highlighted the close relationship between the electric vehicle company and the e-commerce giant. As per the filing, Amazon will have exclusive rights to Rivian’s Electric Delivery Vans for four years following the delivery of the first van. Amazon gets the right of first refusal to purchase the vans for two years after that point.
“Under the EDV Agreement, we and Logistics have agreed to collaborate to design, develop, manufacture, and supply EDVs and/or certain component parts and related services for use in Amazon’s last mile delivery operations. We also have agreed under the EDV Agreement that until the fourth anniversary of when Logistics first receives EDVs (the “Initial Delivery Date”), whether or not Logistics purchases any EDVs from us, we will exclusively provide last mile delivery vehicles to Amazon, and from the fourth anniversary to the sixth anniversary of the Initial Delivery Date, Amazon will have a right of first refusal to purchase last mile delivery vehicles that we produce,” the S-1 filing noted.
Rivian’s focus on the Amazon delivery van does not come without risks for the electric truck maker. In a statement to the publication, Ross Gale, a New Jersey-based car collector and business owner, noted that the Launch Green Rivian R1T he ordered last November is an exciting vehicle. However, the communication from the company so far has been quite lacking. “I 100% believe in the product, having never seen one, having never touched one. But I am annoyed with the failure to meet promises. I mean, just be honest. Tell us what you’re doing,” Gale said.
So far, Rivian has reportedly received refundable deposits for 48,390 R1T and R1S vehicles. This is a relatively conservative number, at least when compared to the Ford F-150 Lightning, which has received over 150,000 non-binding reservations to date. Unofficial trackers for Tesla Cybertruck orders currently estimate over a million pre-orders for the upcoming vehicle. However, the Rivian R1T and R1S are both premium trucks, which means that they are targeting a different demographic than the F-150 Lightning or the Cybertruck. RJ Scaringe is looking to create the Patagonia of trucks with Rivian, and for such a goal, 48,390 R1T and R1S reservations is not bad to start at all.
The Teslarati team would appreciate hearing from you. If you have any tips, reach out to me at maria@teslarati.com or via Twitter @Writer_01001101.
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.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
