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.
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
