News
Tesla gets nod from Rivian CEO for combating ‘untruths’ about electric vehicles
The long, arduous road that Tesla traveled over the past years was recently acknowledged by RJ Scaringe, the 35-year-old CEO of electric vehicle maker Rivian. During a fireside chat at the Automotive News World Congress, Scaringe noted that his 10-year-old company aims to do to pickup trucks and off-road-capable SUVs what Tesla did to the performance and premium automotive segments. That is, he wants Rivian to disprove any untruths that are currently prevalent in the truck and SUV industry.
“I think any great brand … to build a brand that customers are going to be excited about and that customers are going to want to be part of, it has to fundamentally reset expectations. It has to disprove untruths. Tesla took the untruth that electric cars were boring and slow — that they were glorified golf carts — and they disproved that. They showed people that an electric car can be exciting and fun. What we need to disprove is that an electric vehicle can’t get dirty, and that an electric vehicle can’t be rugged, and an electric vehicle can’t go off-road and take your family places, and that an off-road vehicle can’t be good on-road,” he said.
Rivian’s first two vehicles, the R1T pickup truck and the R1S SUV, seem perfectly capable of playing the part. Rivian impressed the EV community and the auto industry when it emerged after 10 years of operating on stealth mode. Both vehicles are well-rounded and refined, created through years of work by a team that included alumni from McLaren (yes, that McLaren). Both have four electric motors that provide immense power and torque, both offer range of over 400 miles per charge, and both are built with intelligent driver-assist features that can transition into full self-driving in the future. During the R1T’s unveiling last November at the historic Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles, Rivian’s intentions of tapping into the premium EV market were evident.
During his recent fireside chat, Scaringe mentioned that the market Rivian is going for are people who own adventure vehicles and luxury vehicles. In a later statement, Scaringe expressed a point related by Elon Musk during the days of the original Roadster, when he noted that the small, two-door high-performance sports car should perform on the same level as the best fossil fuel-powered cars around. For Scaringe, this same point stands true for the R1T and the R1S.
“We want to get the guy who already has a Range Rover sitting next to a Tesla [in the garage], or the [Jeep] Wrangler sitting next to the [BMW] i3, and grab them with something that was just completely different than what they thought was possible. It will be the best-driving truck or SUV in the world. It must be, because if it’s not, why would somebody pick us over a Ford or over a BMW?” he said.
For now, though, Scaringe noted that Rivian is determined to learn from the experiences of companies like Tesla, while integrating concepts from established automakers such as GM and Toyota. With the successful unveiling of its first vehicles, after all, Rivian is about to tackle one of the hardest parts of being an automaker — actually building cars.
“We do recognize the complexity of assembling and putting vehicles together, of managing a very complex supply chain and logistics network, and we’re very [cognizant] of the nuts and bolts, and of the need to follow a proper process to ensure that, when we launch the vehicle, it can be launched with as few problems, errors, and challenges as possible,” Scaringe said.
When Elon Musk wrote his Master Plan Part Deux, he openly admitted that it is very difficult to become successful in the United States’ auto market. Considering the number of automakers that have gone under, Musk lightly noted that starting a car company is downright idiotic, and starting an electric car company is “idiocy squared.” As foolhardy as the venture might have been, though, Tesla has thrived, driven by an ever-increasing demand for its premium electric cars and energy storage products. The Model 3, the company’s most affordable vehicle to date, has been making a dent in the US’ auto market, becoming the overall best-selling luxury car in the country last year.
It has not been easy for the Silicon Valley-bred carmaker. The Model 3 ramp, for one, is described by Elon Musk as one of the most difficult periods of his career. Musk bet Tesla’s future in the electric sedan, and it took longer than expected to reach the company’s self-imposed production targets. Nevertheless, since hitting its goal of producing 5,000 Model 3 per week at the end of Q2 2018, Tesla has steadily improved its footing with the electric car’s production. In Q3 2018, Tesla even posted a profit. The fourth quarter of 2018 might be just as successful.
If Rivian’s strategy so far is any indication, though, the company stands a good chance of avoiding some of the challenges faced by Tesla during the ramps of the original Roadster, the Model S, X, and 3. Rivian, for one, has already secured a facility in Normal, Ill. The company is also working closely on the development of its vehicles’ battery packs. Apart from this, Rivian is also consulting the veterans of the auto industry. In his recent appearance at Autoline After Hours, for one, auto teardown specialist Sandy Munro, who conducted a thorough analysis of the Tesla Model 3, mentioned that Rivian is one of his firm’s clients.
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
