Today: 02-11-2024

CATL Counters: Power Play Unveiled as Chinese Battery Titan Responds to Duke Energy's Battery Disconnect

BEIJING/SHANGHAI, Dec 7 (Reuters) — In a bold response, Chinese battery powerhouse CATL (300750.SZ) has vehemently refuted U.S. utility firm Duke Energy's decision to disconnect its batteries, dismissing claims of potential security threats as baseless and misleading. The company firmly asserts that its business operations and products in the United States adhere to stringent privacy standards, categorically denying any data collection, sale, or sharing practices.

Emphasizing the thoroughness of safety and security protocols, CATL highlights that its products have undergone rigorous reviews, including assessments by U.S. authorities and businesses. The company underscores its commitment to meeting the highest industry standards to ensure the reliability and safety of its battery technology.

Duke Energy, on the other hand, announced on Wednesday the disconnection of large-scale batteries manufactured by CATL at North Carolina Marine Corps base Camp Lejeune. The decision was prompted by concerns raised by lawmakers and experts regarding CATL's alleged close ties to China's ruling Communist Party. Notably, a correction to the initial report clarifies that Duke Energy's action was in response to external concerns voiced by lawmakers, rather than arising from the utility firm's own security apprehensions.

Reporting by Zhang Yan, Qiaoyi Li, and Brenda Goh; Editing by Jacqueline Wong

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

In conclusion, the clash between Chinese battery giant CATL and Duke Energy unfolds as a dispute over alleged security threats to CATL batteries deployed in the United States. CATL vehemently denies the accusations, asserting its adherence to rigorous safety and security standards, with products passing comprehensive reviews by both U.S. authorities and businesses. Duke Energy's decision to disconnect CATL batteries from a military base in North Carolina was driven by external concerns raised by lawmakers and experts, as clarified in a subsequent correction. This dispute underscores the complexities surrounding global collaborations in the energy sector, with security considerations intersecting with geopolitical dynamics. The resolution of these issues will likely require a nuanced approach, balancing technological advancements with national security concerns.