With Detroit-based Rivian Automotive stepping into the limelight, the electric car maker has seen itself being compared to Silicon Valley-based Tesla, a first mover in the EV market. Over the following week, Rivian and its CEO, RJ Scaringe, has been dubbed as several things, among them being “Tesla’s worst nightmare.” This is a flawed assumption.
Rivian emerged from the shadows late last year, surprising the auto industry by revealing two production-ready vehicles that feature the best that electric cars can offer — instant power, luxury, and a killer design. With this in mind, it is not surprising that the company is perceived with optimism by Wall Street and potential investors. Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas, for one, noted that Tesla’s dominance in the US EV market could be “unsustainable” as it faces “serious competition” from Rivian, considering the younger company’s “access to talent and capital” and its focus on the “fastest growing segments of pickup trucks & SUVs.”
Yesterday, reports also emerged that high-profile investors such as GM and Amazon are in talks to invest in Rivian. Provided that the reports are accurate, Reuters noted that Rivian’s valuation would rise to between $1 to $2 billion once the deal goes through. That’s incredibly impressive for the electric car maker, and it bodes well for the EV industry in general as it provides much-needed funds for the development of clean transportation. What it does not do is prove that Tesla will run into trouble because of Rivian’s upcoming and seemingly inevitable rise.
-
- Tesla CEO Elon Musk unveils the Tesla Semi. (Credit: Tesla)
-
- The Rivian R1T and R1S take center stage at the 2018 LA Autoshow
Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe both aim to rid the world of fossil fuels.
While rivalries present a compelling narrative, it is difficult to paint Tesla and Rivian as rivals trying to beat each other without compromising each company’s character. Tesla’s Elon Musk, for one, has always encouraged the development of more electric cars. In a recent tweet late last month, Musk noted that it is “exciting to see all the new electric vehicles coming to market,” referring to a report of other EVs set to debut in the coming years. In a later post, Musk added that Tesla’s true competition is not new electric vehicles, but rather, the “enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world’s factories every day.”
In his most recent 60 Minutes segment, Musk went so far as to state that “if somebody comes and makes a better electric car than Tesla, and it’s so much better than ours that we can’t sell our cars, and we go bankrupt, I still think that’s a good thing for the world.” It remains unknown if Elon Musk could ultimately put his foot where his mouth is, but considering his statements so far, he definitely appears to be fully supportive of other electric car makers, including Rivian.
Rivian, for its part, has never given an indication that it is going after Tesla. The electric car maker has established since the reveal of its first truck that it is dedicating itself to the production of luxury adventure vehicles (at least for now) with zero compromises. Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe has also been pretty open about his opinion of Tesla. During a fireside chat at the Automotive News World Congress last month, Scaringe credited Tesla for disproving “untruths” about electric vehicles. Simply put, everything that Rivian has done so far indicates that it acknowledges Tesla, and it is fully onboard with the company’s mission of accelerating the advent of sustainable energy.
Mainstream media loves pitting companies, products, and people against each other — Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android, Sony’s PlayStation and Microsoft’s Xbox, Celebrity A and Celebrity B, the list is endless. In the case of Tesla and Rivian and their CEOs, this idea does not seem to line up very well. In their respective segments alone, the companies should not be compared, considering that Tesla is pursuing the mainstream market with the Model 3 and the upcoming Model Y, while Rivian is focusing on the luxury adventure sphere with the R1T and R1S. Until Tesla releases its own pickup truck, then the two electric car makers are best seen as allies in the transition away from fossil fuels — not rivals attempting to overpower each other.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
