The Rivian CFO has made several announcements at the recent Bank of America Securities Summit, enticing investors and fans alike.
Rivian is finally catching its stride following a successful first quarter of the year, and coming off this excellent production ramp; the automaker is headed toward a whole new set of challenges, relating to everything from its second-generation R2 vehicle to its profitability to its ongoing R1 truck ramp. Luckily, the company’s CFO, Claire Rauh McDonough, released new information covering these points at last week’s Bank of America Securities Summit.
@RivianUpdates initially reported the tsunami of Rivian announcements on Twitter in a lengthy thread covering the numerous statements. Still, they can essentially be boiled down to three main points, R1 production updates, the Van production ramp, and R2 updates, along with a couple of minor updates.
Rivian’s CFO revealed a TON of important information via BofA Securities Summit: $RIVN ?#Rivian @Rivian @RJScaringe
• Rivian anticipates achieving a POSITIVE gross profit by H2 of 2024
• Rivian is aiming to build 85K R1s in 2024.
• R2 production capacity will be 200K units… pic.twitter.com/YZiyz02aUN
— Rivian Updates (@rivianupdates) April 7, 2023
R1 Production Updates:
Perhaps the most notable announcement from the BofA summit is the news regarding the company’s premier truck offering, the R1 lineup. Foremost, Rivian remains on track to achieve profitability by the second half of 2024, motivated essentially entirely by R1 and van deliveries. Further, while McDonough did not disclose the total number of backlog orders, the company anticipates completing all of its pre-March price increase orders by mid-2023. It has a backlog extending “well into 2024” with orders from after the price increase.
On top of this sales success, Rivian is learning some surprising things about its newest customers, primarily their price point. Rivian’s CFO notes that the automaker has seen the average purchase price of its trucks steadily increase, indicating that more premium buyers are coming to the automaker, who are typically more willing to purchase the optional add-ons. However, following these comments, the company executive noted that Rivian does not currently plan to increase the base price of its R1 vehicles.
Looking to the future of the R1 vehicles, the CFO notes that Rivian plans to produce 85,000 vehicles annually by 2026, a production number that the automaker has previously stayed tight-lipped about.
R2 Design and Production Updates:
As the Rivian R1 vehicles have continued to age, the anticipation for the company’s next generation “R2” trucks has built. And while Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe has noted the business plans to make the upcoming truck a more affordable model, other details have yet to be revealed.
Most surprising to investors was the CFO’s bold estimation of R2 production, which is anticipated to begin in the 2025-2026 timeframe. Rivian aims to produce 200,000 R2 trucks during 2026 and will then seek to double that number as its next production goal, though a timeframe for that upgrade was not shared.
Regarding the upcoming truck’s market position, sadly, Rivian remains secretive. However, the CFO noted that the new vehicle would aim to compete with other luxury volume sellers like the Tesla Model Y. With this information, many now anticipate the truck to start at around $40,000.
Finally, Rivian’s CFO pointed out that R2 aims to be both a volume seller and a global vehicle, meaning it will be available in numerous markets. Currently, Rivian has been supply constrained and hence, a strictly North American brand, but that may change in the near future, with Europe likely being the company’s next target.
Electric Delivery Van Announcements:
Despite Amazon’s recent announcement that it would be decreasing the number of vans it would be buying this year, Rivian remains entirely focused on the production ramp of its offering. One of Rivian’s top priorities has been the production of its Electric Delivery Van (EDV), which has been taking the streets of the United States by storm. Highlighting this focus, the company CFO noted that the van takes “enduro-motor” priority over the dual-motor R1 vehicles. Moreover, the van received two notable production upgrades in Q1 of this year, integrating the new motor and Rivian’s new LFP battery pack.
Other Announcements:
Besides these amazing announcements on its most exciting products, Rivian also revealed updates coming to its Adventure Network charging infrastructure. To aid its rapid development, Rivian will now be looking to join the “Federal Charging Fund” in the United States, making it eligible to receive incentives from the federal government to place its charging network. However, as a result, Rivian will be forced to open its network to other EVs. Nonetheless, with the feds willing to put up as much as 80% of the cash required for installation, many would consider Rivian foolhardy to decline the offer.
What do you think of the article? Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns? Shoot me an email at william@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @WilliamWritin. If you have news tips, email us at tips@teslarati.com!
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
