AES 10-K 2018-12-31

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

____________________________________

FORM 10-K

_____________________________________

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2018

-OR-

THE AES CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15 (d) of the Act. Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No x

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates on June 29, 2018, the last business day of the Registrant's most recently completed second fiscal quarter (based on the adjusted closing sale price of $13.05 of the Registrant's Common Stock, as reported by the New York Stock Exchange on such date) was approximately $8.63 billion.

The number of shares outstanding of Registrant's Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, on February 21, 2019 was 662,358,244.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of Registrant's Proxy Statement for its 2019 annual meeting of stockholders are incorporated by reference in Parts II and III

THE AES CORPORATION FISCAL YEAR 2018 FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

The following terms and abbreviations appear in the text of this report and have the definitions indicated below:

PART I

In this Annual Report the terms “AES,” “the Company,” “us,” or “we” refer to The AES Corporation and all of its subsidiaries and affiliates, collectively. The terms “The AES Corporation” and “Parent Company” refer only to the parent, publicly held holding company, The AES Corporation, excluding its subsidiaries and affiliates.

FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

In this filing we make statements concerning our expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, goals, strategies, and future events or performance. Such statements are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Although we believe that these forward-looking statements and the underlying assumptions are reasonable, we cannot assure you that they will prove to be correct.

Forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties, and there are factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in our forward-looking statements. Some of those factors (in addition to others described elsewhere in this report and in subsequent securities filings) include:

These factors in addition to others described elsewhere in this Form 10-K, including those described under Item 1A.—Risk Factors, and in subsequent securities filings, should not be construed as a comprehensive listing of factors that could cause results to vary from our forward-looking information.

We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. If one or more forward-looking statements are updated, no inference should be drawn that additional updates will be made with respect to those or other forward-looking statements.

Item 1.—Business is an outline of our strategy and our businesses by SBU, including key financial drivers. Additional items that may have an impact on our businesses are discussed in Item 1A.—Risk Factors and Item 3.—Legal Proceedings.

Executive Summary

Incorporated in 1981, AES is a power generation and utility company, providing affordable, sustainable energy through our diverse portfolio of thermal and renewable generation facilities and distribution businesses. Our mission is to improve lives by accelerating a safer and greener energy future. We do this by leveraging our unique electricity platforms and the knowledge of our people to provide the energy and infrastructure solutions our customers need. Our people share a passion to help meet the world's current and increasing energy needs, while providing communities and countries the opportunity for economic growth through the availability of reliable, affordable electric power.

Overview of Our Strategy

Future growth across our company will be heavily weighted toward less carbon-intensive wind, solar and natural gas generation and infrastructure. Our robust backlog of projects under construction or under signed PPAs continues to increase, driven by our focus on select markets where we can take advantage of our global scale and synergies with our existing businesses. In 2018, we signed long-term PPAs for 2 GW of capacity and we are on pace to sign 2 to 3 GW of new PPAs annually through 2022.

We are also working on enhancing some of our current contracts by blending and extending existing PPAs and by adding renewable energy. We call this approach Green Blend and Extend. With this strategy, we leverage our existing platforms, contracts and relationships to negotiate new long-term renewable PPAs with higher returns than we would otherwise achieve through a bidding process. We see potential opportunities to execute this strategy across many of our markets, including Chile, Mexico and the United States.

In Hawaii, we are delivering pioneering solar plus storage facilities, which will serve baseload energy needs, including satisfying demand with renewable power 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

We have two LNG regasification terminals in Central America and the Caribbean, with a total of 150 TBTU of LNG storage capacity. These terminals were built to supply not only the gas for our co-located combined cycle

plants, but also to meet the growing demand for natural gas in the region.

In Panama, the storage tank at our recently inaugurated Colon power plant and regasification terminal is expected to come on-line in mid-2019. We believe there is significant potential upside associated with increasing utilization beyond the requirements of our co-located power plant.

As a result of our efforts to decrease our exposure to coal-fired generation and increase our portfolio of renewables, energy storage and natural gas capacity, we are significantly reducing our carbon dioxide emissions per MWh of generation. Under our current strategy, we anticipate a reduction of carbon intensity levels of 50% from 2016 to 2022 and of 70% from 2016 to 2030.

We are a leader in deploying new technologies, such as battery-based energy storage, drone applications and digital customer interfaces. The Company's energy storage joint venture with Siemens, Fluence, has now delivered or been awarded 80 projects in 18 countries, with a total capacity of 766 MW.

Strategic Highlights

We continue to improve the returns from our existing portfolio and position AES for long-term, sustainable growth.

Segments

We are organized into four market-oriented SBUs: US and Utilities (United States, Puerto Rico and El Salvador); South America (Chile, Colombia, Argentina and Brazil); MCAC (Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean); and Eurasia (Europe and Asia) — which are led by our SBU Presidents. During the first quarter of 2018, the Andes and Brazil SBUs were merged in order to leverage scale and are now reported together as part of the South America SBU. Further, the Puerto Rico and El Salvador businesses, formerly part of the MCAC SBU, were combined with the US SBU, which is now reported as the US and Utilities SBU. Within our four SBUs, we have two lines of business. The first business line is generation, where we own and/or operate power plants to generate and sell power to customers, such as utilities, industrial users, and other intermediaries. The second business line is utilities, where we own and/or operate utilities to generate or purchase, distribute, transmit and sell electricity to end-user customers in the residential, commercial, industrial and governmental sectors within a defined service area. In certain circumstances, our utilities also generate and sell electricity on the wholesale market.

We measure the operating performance of our SBUs using Adjusted PTC, a non-GAAP measure. The Adjusted PTC by SBU for the year ended December 31, 2018 is shown below. The percentages for Adjusted PTC are the contribution by each SBU to the gross metric, i.e., the total Adjusted PTC by SBU, before deductions for Corporate. See Item 7.—Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—SBU Performance Analysis of this Form 10-K for reconciliation and definitions of Adjusted PTC.

The following summarizes our businesses within our four SBUs.

Overview

Generation

We currently own and/or operate a generation portfolio of 31,792 MW, in

Showing the first 8K of 169K characters. Open the full section

You should consider carefully the following risks, along with the other information contained in or incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K. Additional risks and uncertainties also may adversely affect our business and operations, including those discussed in Item 7*.—Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations* in this Form 10-K. If any of the following events actually occur, our business, financial results and financial condition could be materially adversely affected*.*

We routinely encounter and address risks, some of which may cause our future results to be materially different, than we presently anticipate. The categories of risk we have identified in Item 1A.—Risk Factors of this Form 10-K include the following:

These risk factors should be read in conjunction with Item 7.—Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and the Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes included elsewhere in this report.

Risks Related to our Indebtedness and Financial Condition

We have a significant amount of debt, a large percentage of which is secured, that could adversely affect our business and our ability to fulfill our obligations.

As of December 31, 2018, we had approximately $19 billion of outstanding indebtedness on a consolidated basis. All outstanding borrowings, if any, under The AES Corporation's senior secured credit facility and secured term loan are secured by certain of our assets, including the pledge of capital stock of many of The AES Corporation's directly held subsidiaries. Most of the debt of The AES Corporation's subsidiaries is secured by substantially all of the assets of those subsidiaries. Since we have such a high level of debt, a substantial portion of cash flow from operations must be used to make payments on this debt. Furthermore, since a significant percentage of our assets are used to secure this debt, this reduces the amount of collateral available for future secured debt or credit support and reduces our flexibility in operating these secured assets. This high level of indebtedness and related security could have other important consequences to us and our investors, including:

The agreements governing our indebtedness, including the indebtedness of our subsidiaries, limit, but do not prohibit the incurrence of additional indebtedness. If we were to become more leveraged, the risks described above would increase. Further, our actual cash requirements in the future may be greater than expected. Accordingly, our cash flows may not be sufficient to repay at maturity all of the outstanding debt as it becomes due and, in that event, we may not be able to borrow money, sell assets, raise equity or otherwise raise funds on acceptable terms or at all to refinance our debt as it becomes due. In addition, our ability to refinance existing or future indebtedness will depend on the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. Any refinancing of our debt could come at higher interest rates or may require us to comply with onerous covenants, which could restrict our business operations. See Note 10.—Debt included in Item 8.—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this Form 10-K for a schedule of our debt maturities.

The AES Corporation is a holding company and its ability to make payments on its outstanding indebtedness, including its public debt securities, is dependent upon the receipt of funds from its subsidiaries by way of dividends, fees, interest, loans or otherwise.

The AES Corporation is a holding company with no material assets other than the stock of its subsidiaries. Almost all of The AES Corporation's cash flow is generated by the operating activities of its subsidiaries. Therefore, The AES Corporation's ability to make payments on its indebtedness and to fund its other obligations is dependent not only on the ability of its subsidiaries to generate cash, but also on the ability of the subsidiaries to distribute cash to it in the form of dividends, fees, interest, tax sharing payments, loans or otherwise.

However, our subsidiaries face various restrictions in their ability to distribute cash to The AES Corporation. Most of the subsidiaries are obligated, pursuant to loan agreements, indentures or non-recourse financing arrangements, to satisfy certain restricted payment covenants or other conditions before they may make distributions to The AES Corporation. Business performance and local accounting and tax rules may also limit dividend distributions. Subsidiaries in foreign countries may also be prevented from distributing funds to The AES Corporation as a result of foreign governments restricting the repatriation of funds or the conversion of currencies.

The AES Corporation's subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities and, unless they have expressly guaranteed any of The AES Corporation's indebtedness, have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to pay any amounts due pursuant to such debt or to make any funds available whether by dividends, fees, loans or other payments.

Existing and potential future defaults by subsidiaries or affiliates could adversely affect The AES Corporation.

We attempt to finance our domestic and foreign projects primarily under loan agreements and related documents that, except as noted below, require the loans to be repaid solely from the project's revenues and provide that the repayment of the loans (and interest thereon) is secured solely by the capital stock, physical assets, contracts and cash flow of that project subsidiary or affiliate. This type of financing is usually referred to as

non-recourse debt or "non-recourse financing." In some non-recourse financings, The AES Corporation has explicitly agreed to undertake certain limited obligations and contingent liabilities, most of which by their terms will only be effective or will be terminated upon the occurrence of future events. These obligations and liabilities take the form of guarantees, indemnities, letters of credit, letter of credit reimbursement agreements and agreements to pay, in certain circumstances, the project lenders or other parties.

As of December 31, 2018, we had approximately $19.3 billion of outstanding indebtedness on a consolidated basis, of which approximately $3.7 billion was recourse debt of The AES Corporation and approximately $15.6 billion was non-recourse debt. In addition, we have outstanding guarantees, indemnities, letters of credi

Showing the first 8K of 93K characters. Open the full section

None.

We maintain offices in many places around the world, generally pursuant to the provisions of long- and short-term leases, none of which we believe are material. With a few exceptions, our facilities, which are described in Item 1*—*Business of this Form 10-K, are subject to mortgages or other liens or encumbrances as part of the project's related finance facility. In addition, the majority of our facilities are located on land that is leased. However, in a few instances, no accompanying project financing exists for the facility, and in a few of these cases, the land interest may not be subject to any encumbrance and is owned outright by the subsidiary or affiliate.

The Company is involved in certain claims, suits and legal proceedings in the normal course of business. The Company has accrued for litigation and claims when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company believes, based upon information it currently possesses and taking into account established reserves for estimated liabilities and its insurance coverage, that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings and actions is unlikely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements. It is reasonably possible, however, that some matters could be decided unfavorably to the Company and could require the Company to pay damages or make expenditures in amounts that could be material, but that cannot be estimated as of December 31, 2018.

In December 2001, Grid Corporation of Odisha (“GRIDCO”) served a notice to arbitrate pursuant to the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 on the Company, AES Orissa Distribution Private Limited (“AES ODPL”), and Jyoti Structures (“Jyoti”) pursuant to the terms of the shareholders agreement between GRIDCO, the Company, AES ODPL, Jyoti and the Central Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (“CESCO”), an affiliate of the Company. In the arbitration, GRIDCO asserted that a comfort letter issued by the Company in connection with the Company's indirect investment in CESCO obligates the Company to provide additional financial support to cover all of CESCO's financial obligations to GRIDCO. GRIDCO appeared to be seeking approximately $189 million in damages, plus undisclosed penalties and interest, but a detailed alleged damage analysis was not filed by GRIDCO. The Company counterclaimed against GRIDCO for damages. In June 2007, a 2-to-1 majority of the arbitral tribunal rendered its award rejecting GRIDCO's claims and holding that none of the respondents, the Company, AES ODPL, or Jyoti, had any liability to GRIDCO. The respondents' counterclaims were also rejected. A majority of the tribunal later awarded the respondents, including the Company, some of their costs relating to the arbitration. GRIDCO filed challenges of the tribunal's awards with the local Indian court. GRIDCO's challenge of the costs award has been dismissed by the court, but its challenge of the liability award remains pending. A hearing on the liability award has not taken place to date. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

Pursuant to their environmental audit, AES Sul and AES Florestal discovered 200 barrels of solid creosote waste and other contaminants at a pole factory that AES Florestal had been operating. The conclusion of the audit was that a prior operator of the pole factory, Companhia Estadual de Energia (“CEEE”), had been using those contaminants to treat the poles that were manufactured at the factory. On their initiative, AES Sul and AES Florestal communicated with Brazilian authorities and CEEE about the adoption of containment and remediation measures. In March 2008, the State Attorney of the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil filed a public civil action against AES Sul, AES Florestal and CEEE seeking an order requiring the companies to mitigate the contaminated area located on the grounds of the pole factory and an indemnity payment of approximately R$6 million ($2 million). In October 2011, the State Attorney filed a request for an injunction ordering the defendant companies to contain and remove the contamination immediately. The court granted injunctive relief on October 18, 2011, but determined that only CEEE was required to perform the removal work. In May 2012, CEEE began the removal work in compliance with the injunction. The case is now awaiting judgment. The removal costs are estimated to be approximately R$29 million ($8 million), and there could be additional remediation costs which cannot be estimated at this time. In June 2016 the Company sold AES Sul to CPFL Energia S.A. and as part of the sale, AES Guaiba, a holding Company of AES Sul, retained the potential liability relating to this matter. The Company believes that there are meritorious

defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In January 2012, the Brazil Federal Tax Authority issued an assessment alleging that AES Tietê had paid PIS and COFINS taxes from 2007 to 2010 at a lower rate than the tax authority believed was applicable. AES Tietê challenged the assessment on the grounds that the tax rate was set in the applicable legislation. In April 2013, the FIAC determined that AES Tietê should have calculated the taxes at the higher rate and that AES Tietê was liable for unpaid taxes, interest, and penalties totaling approximately R$1.21 billion ($312 million) as estimated by AES Tietê. AES Tietê appealed to the SIAC. In January 2015, the Second Instance Administrative Court ("SIAC") issued a decision in AES Tietê's favor, finding that AES Tietê was not liable for unpaid taxes. The public prosecutor subsequently filed an appeal, which was denied as untimely. The Tax Authority thereafter filed a motion for clarification of the SIAC's decision, which was denied in September 2016. The Tax Authority later filed a special appeal (“Special Appeal”), which was rejected as untimely in October 2016. The Tax Authority thereafter filed an interlocutory appeal with the Superior Administrative Court (“SAC”). In March 2017, the President of the SAC determined that the SAC would analyze the Special Appeal. AES Tietê challenged the Special Appeal. In May 2018, the SAC rejected the Special Appeal on the merits. In August 2018, the Tax Authority filed a motion for clarification. AES Tietê believes it has meritorious defenses to the claim and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In January 2015, DPL received NOVs from the EPA alleging violations of opacity at Stuart and Killen Stations, and in October 2015, IPL received a similar NOV alleging violations at Petersburg Station. In February 2017, the EPA issued a second NOV for DPL Stuart Station, alleging violations of opacity in 2016. Moreover, in February 2016, IPL received an NOV from the EPA alleging violations of NSR and other CAA regulations, the Indiana SIP, and the Title V operating permit at Petersburg Station. It is too early to determine whether the NOVs could have a material impact on our business, financial condition or results of our operations. IPL would seek recovery of any operating or capital expenditures, but not fines or penalties, related to air pollution control technology to reduce regulated air emissions; however, there can be no assurances that we would be successful in this regard.

In September 2015, AES Southland Development, LLC and AES Redondo Beach, LLC filed a lawsuit against the California Coastal Commission (the “CCC”) over the CCC's determination that the site of AES Redondo Beach included approximately 5.93 acres of CCC-jurisdictional wetlands. The CCC has asserted that AES Redondo Beach has improperly installed and operated water pumps affecting the alleged wetlands in violation of the California Coastal Act and Redondo Beach Local Coastal Program and has ordered AES Redondo Beach to restore the site. Additional potential outcomes of the CCC determination could include an order requiring AES Redondo Beach to fund a wetland mitigation project and/or pay fines or penalties. AES Redondo Beach believes that it has meritorious arguments and intends to vigorously prosecute such lawsuit, but there can be no assurances that it will be successful.

In October 2015, Ganadera Guerra, S.A. (“GG”) and Constructora Tymsa, S.A. (“CT”) filed separate lawsuits against AES Panama in the local courts of Panama. The claimants allege that AES Panama profited from a hydropower facility (La Estrella) being partially located on land owned initially by GG and currently by CT, and that AES Panama must pay compensation for its use of the land. The damages sought from AES Panama are approximately $685 million (GG) and $100 million (CT). In October 2016, the court dismissed GG's claim because of GG's failure to comply with a court order requiring GG to disclose certain information. GG has refiled its lawsuit. Also, there are ongoing administrative proceedings concerning whether AES Panama is entitled to acquire an easement over the land and whether AES Panama can continue to occupy the land. AES Panama believes it has meritorious defenses and claims and will assert them vigorously; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In January 2017, the Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente (“SMA”) issued a Formulation of Charges asserting that Alto Maipo is in violation of certain conditions of the Environmental Approval Resolution (“RCA”) governing the construction of Alto Maipo’s hydropower project, for, among other things, operating vehicles at unauthorized times and failing to mitigate the impact of water infiltration during tunnel construction (“Infiltration Water”). In February 2017, Alto Maipo submitted a compliance plan (“Compliance Plan”) to the SMA which, if approved by the agency, would resolve the matter without materially impacting construction of the project. Thereafter, the SMA made three separate requests for information about the Compliance Plan, to which Alto Maipo duly responded. In April 2018, the SMA approved the Compliance Plan (“April 2018 Approval”). Among other things the Compliance Plan as approved by the SMA requires Alto Maipo to obtain from the Environmental Evaluation Service (“SEA”) an acceptable interpretation of the RCA’s provisions concerning the authorized times to operate certain vehicles. In addition, Alto Maipo must obtain the SEA’s approval concerning the control, discharge, and treatment of Infiltration Water. Alto Maipo continues to seek the relevant final approvals from the SEA. Furthermore,

in May 2018, three lawsuits were filed with the Environmental Court of Santiago (“ECS”) challenging the April 2018 Approval. Alto Maipo does not believe that there are grounds to challenge the April 2018 Approval. The ECS has not decided the lawsuits to date. If Alto Maipo complies with the requirements of the Compliance Plan, and if the above-referenced lawsuits are dismissed, the Formulation of Charges will be discharged without penalty. Otherwise, Alto Maipo could be subject to penalties, and the construction of the project could be negatively impacted. Alto Maipo will pursue its interests vigorously in these matters; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In June 2017, Alto Maipo terminated one of its contractors, Constructora Nuevo Maipo S.A. (“CNM”), given CNM’s stoppage of tunneling works, its failure to produce a completion plan, and its other breaches of contract. Also, Alto Maipo drew $73 million under letters of credit (“LC Funds”) in connection with its termination of CNM. Alto Maipo is pursuing arbitration against CNM to recover excess completion costs and other damages totaling over $230 million (net of the LC Funds) relating to CNM’s breaches (“First Arbitration”). CNM denies liability and seeks a declaration that its termination was wrongful, damages, and other relief. CNM has made submissions alleging that it is entitled to damages ranging from $90 million to $150 million (which include the LC Funds) plus interest and costs. Alto Maipo has contested these submissions. There will be another round of briefing. The evidentiary hearing is scheduled for May 20-31, 2019. Also, in August 2018, CNM purported to initiate a separate arbitration against AES Gener and the Company (“Second Arbitration”). In the Second Arbitration, CNM seeks to pierce Alto Maipo’s corporate veil and appears to seek an award requiring AES Gener and the Company to pay any amounts that are found to be due to CNM in the First Arbitration or otherwise. Alto Maipo requested in the First Arbitration an interim order restraining CNM from proceeding with the Second Arbitration until the conclusion of the First Arbitration. That request was denied. Separately, AES Gener and the Company requested that the relevant arbitral institution decide that the Second Arbitration shall not proceed, given that (among other reasons) there is no arbitration agreement between AES Gener and the Company and CNM. That request was not granted. Subsequently, AES Gener and the Company requested that the Second Arbitration be consolidated into the First Arbitration. That request was granted. The schedule has not yet been established on CNM’s claims against AES Gener and the Company. Each of the above-referenced AES companies believes it has meritorious claims and/or defenses and will pursue its interests vigorously; however, there can be no assurances that each of the AES companies will be successful in its efforts.

In February 2018, Tau Power B.V. and Altai Power LLP (collectively, “AES Claimants”) initiated arbitration against the Republic of Kazakhstan (“ROK”) for the ROK’s failure to pay approximately $75 million (“Return Transfer Payment”) for the return of two hydropower plants (“HPPs”) pursuant to a concession agreement. In April 2018, the ROK responded by denying liability and asserting purported counterclaims concerning the annual payment provisions in the concession agreement, a bonus allegedly due for the 1997 takeover of the HPPs, and dividends paid by the HPPs. The ROK seeks to recover the Return Transfer Payment (which is in an escrow account maintained by a third party) and appears to be seeking over $480 million on its counterclaims. The AES Claimants believe that the ROK’s defenses and counterclaims are without merit. An arbitrator has been appointed to decide the case. The final evidentiary hearing is scheduled for July 22 to 26, 2019. The AES Claimants will pursue their case and assert their defenses vigorously; however, there can be no assurances that they will be successful in their efforts.

In December 2018, a lawsuit was filed in Dominican Republic civil court against the Company, AES Puerto Rico, and three other AES affiliates. The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of over 100 Dominican claimants, living and deceased, and appears to seek relief relating to CCRs that were delivered to the Dominican Republic in 2004. The lawsuit generally alleges that the CCRs caused personal injuries and deaths and demands $476 million in alleged damages. The lawsuit does not identify, or provide any supporting information concerning, the alleged injuries of the claimants individually. Nor does the lawsuit provide any information supporting the demand for damages or explaining how the quantum was derived. The relevant AES companies believe that they have meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against them and will defend themselves vigorously in this proceeding; however, there can be no assurances that they will be successful in their efforts.

Not applicable.

PART II

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

None.

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers

Stock Repurchase Program — The Board authorization permits the Parent Company to repurchase stock through a variety of methods, including open market repurchases and/or privately negotiated transactions. There can be no assurances as to the amount, timing or prices of repurchases, which may vary based on market conditions and other factors. The Stock Repurchase Program does not have an expiration date and can be modified or terminated by the Board of Directors at any time. The cumulative repurchase from the commencement of the Stock Repurchase Program in July 2010 through December 31, 2018 is 154.3 million shares at a total cost of $1.9 billion, at an average price per share of $12.12 (including a nominal amount of commissions). As of December 31, 2018, $264 million remained available for repurchase under the Stock Repurchase Program. No repurchases were made by The AES Corporation of its common stock in 2018 and 2017, respectively. The Parent Company repurchased 8,686,983 shares of its common stock in 2016.

Market Information

Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "AES."

Dividends

The Parent Company commenced a quarterly cash dividend in the fourth quarter of 2012. The Parent Company has increased this dividend annually and the quarterly cash dividend for the last three years are displayed below.

The fourth quarter 2018 cash dividend is to be paid in the first quarter of 2019. There can be no assurance the AES Board will declare a dividend in the future or, if declared, the amount of any dividend. Our ability to pay dividends will also depend on receipt of dividends from our various subsidiaries across our portfolio.

Under the terms of our senior secured credit facility, which we entered into with a commercial bank syndicate, we have limitations on our ability to pay cash dividends and/or repurchase stock. Our subsidiaries' ability to declare and pay cash dividends to us is also subject to certain limitations contained in the project loans, governmental provisions and other agreements to which our subsidiaries are subject. See the information contained under Item 12.—Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters—Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans of this Form 10-K.

Holders

As of February 21, 2019, there were approximately 3,875 record holders of our common stock.

Performance Graph

THE AES CORPORATION

PEER GROUP INDEX/STOCK PRICE PERFORMANCE

Source: Bloomberg

We have selected the Standard and Poor's ("S&P") 500 Utilities Index as our peer group index. The S&P 500 Utilities Index is a published sector index comprising the 27 electric and gas utilities included in the S&P 500.

The five year total return chart assumes $100 invested on December 31, 2013 in AES Common Stock, the S&P 500 Index and the S&P 500 Utilities Index. The information included under the heading Performance Graph shall not be considered "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The following table presents our selected financial data as of the dates and for the periods indicated. This data should be read together with Item 7.—Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and the Consolidated Financial Statements and the notes thereto included in Item 8.—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this Form 10-K. The selected financial data for each of the years in the five year period ended December 31, 2018 have been derived from our audited Consolidated Financial Statements. Prior period amounts have been restated to reflect discontinued operations in all periods presented. Prior to July 1, 2014, a discontinued operation was a component of the Company that either had been disposed of or was classified as held-for-sale and where the Company did not expect to have significant cash flows or significant continuing involvement with the component as of one year after its disposal or sale. Effective July 1, 2014, the Company adopted new accounting guidance under which the Company reports a business as discontinued operations if the disposal represents a strategic shift that has (or will have) a major effect on the Company’s operations and financial results when the business is sold or classified as held-for-sale. Please refer to Note 1— General and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies in Item 8.—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this Form 10-K for further explanation. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of our future results.

Acquisitions, disposals, reclassifications and changes in accounting principles affect the comparability of information included in the tables below. Please refer to the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8.—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this Form 10-K for further explanation of the effect of such activities. Please also refer to Item 1A.—Risk Factors of this Form 10-K and Note 26—Risks and Uncertainties to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8.—Financial Statements and

Supplementary Data of this Form 10-K for certain risks and uncertainties that may cause the data reflected herein not to be indicative of our future financial condition or results of operations.

SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

Executive Summary

In 2018, AES delivered strong financial results and achieved significant milestones on its strategic goals, including continuing to enhance the resilience of the portfolio and growing the backlog of renewable projects. The Company achieved a key investment grade metric, completed construction of 1.3 GW of new projects and signed long-term PPAs for 2 GW of renewable capacity. See Overview of our Strategy included in Item 1.—Business of this Form 10-K for further information.

During 2018, the Company saw increased margins at its South America, MCAC and US and Utilities SBUs. These increases were primarily due to higher tariffs and rates in Argentina and the U.S., higher contract prices in Colombia, new PPAs in Chile, and increased sales due to the commencement of operations at the Colon combined cycle facility in Panama and Eagle Valley CCGT in the U.S. The Company also experienced decreased margins in the Eurasia SBU due to completed sales of Masinloc in 2018 and the Kazakhstan facilities in 2017. In addition, the Company reduced its recourse debt by approximately $1 billion in 2018, resulting in a decrease in Parent Company interest.

Overview of 2018 Results

Earnings Per Share Results in 2018 (in millions, except per share amounts)

Diluted earnings per share from continuing operations increased $2.25 to $1.48 for the year ended December 31, 2018, as compared to a loss of $0.77 for the year ended December 31, 2017. This increase was primarily due to the current year gains on sales of Masinloc, CTNG and Electrica Santiago, prior year loss on sale of the Kazakhstan CHPs and HPPs, prior year impairments at DPL, Laurel Mountain and in Kazakhstan, lower interest expense at the Parent Company and Gener, a one-time transition tax on foreign earnings following the enactment of the TCJA in the prior year, and higher margins. These increases were partially offset by higher current year tax expense due to the new GILTI rules in the U.S. in large part due to the sale of our interest in Masinloc, the current year impairment at Shady Point, other-than-temporary impairment of the Guacolda equity method investment in Chile, foreign exchange losses mainly due to the devaluation of the Argentine peso and foreign currency gains in the prior year, higher current year losses on extinguishment of debt, and a favorable legal settlement at Uruguaiana in the prior year.

Adjusted EPS, a non-GAAP measure, increased $0.16, or 15%, to $1.24, reflecting higher margins at the South America, US and Utilities and MCAC SBUs and lower interest on Parent Company debt. These increases were partially offset by lower margin at the Eurasia SBU mainly driven by the sales of Masinloc and Kazakhstan.

Review of Consolidated Results of Operations

Showing the first 8K of 157K characters. Open the full section

Overview Regarding Market Risks — Our businesses are exposed to and proactively manage market risk. Our primary market risk exposure is to the price of commodities, particularly electricity, oil, natural gas, coal and environmental credits. In addition, our businesses are also exposed to lower electricity prices due to increased competition, including from renewable sources such as wind and solar, as a result of lower costs of entry and lower variable costs. We operate in multiple countries and as such are subject to volatility in exchange rates at varying degrees at the subsidiary level and between our functional currency, the U.S. dollar, and currencies of the countries in which we operate. We are also exposed to interest rate fluctuations due to our issuance of debt and related financial instruments.

The disclosures presented in this Item 7A are based upon a number of assumptions; actual effects may differ. The safe harbor provided in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 shall apply to the disclosures contained in this Item 7A. For further information regarding market risk, see Item 1A.—Risk Factors, Our financial position and results of operations may fluctuate significantly due to fluctuations in currency exchange rates experienced at our foreign operations, Wholesale power prices are declining in many markets and this could have a material adverse effect on our operations and opportunities for future growth, and We may not be adequately hedged against our exposure to changes in commodity prices or interest rates of this 2018 Form 10-K.

Commodity Price Risk — Although we prefer to hedge our exposure to the impact of market fluctuations in the price of electricity, fuels and environmental credits, some of our generation businesses operate under short-term sales or under contract sales that leave an unhedged exposure on some of our capacity or through imperfect fuel pass-throughs. In our utility businesses, we may be exposed to commodity price movements depending on our excess or shortfall of generation relative to load obligations and sharing or pass-through mechanisms. These businesses subject our operational results to the volatility of prices for electricity, fuels and environmental credits in competitive markets. We employ risk management strategies to hedge our financial performance against the effects of fluctuations in energy commodity prices. The implementation of these strategies can involve the use of physical and financial commodity contracts, futures, swaps and options.

The portion of our sales and purchases that are not subject to such agreements or contracted businesses where indexation is not perfectly matched to business drivers will be exposed to commodity price risk. When hedging the output of our generation assets, we utilize contract sales that lock in the spread per MWh between variable costs and the price at which the electricity can be sold.

AES businesses will see changes in variable margin performance as global commodity prices shift. For 2019, we project pre-tax earnings exposure on a 10% move in commodity prices would be approximately less than $5 million for U.S. power, $(10) million for natural gas, less than $(5) million for oil and $(5) million for coal. Our estimates exclude correlation of oil with coal or natural gas. For example, a decline in oil or natural gas prices can be accompanied by a decline in coal price if commodity prices are correlated. In aggregate, the Company's downside exposure occurs with lower power, higher oil, higher natural gas, and higher coal prices. Exposures at individual businesses will change as new contracts or financial hedges are executed, and our sensitivity to changes in commodity prices generally increases in later years with reduced hedge levels at some of our businesses.

Commodity prices affect our businesses differently depending on the local market characteristics and risk management strategies. Spot power prices, contract indexation provisions and generation costs can be directly or indirectly affected by movements in the price of natural gas, oil and coal. We have some natural offsets across our businesses such that low commodity prices may benefit certain businesses and be a cost to others. Exposures are not perfectly linear or symmetric. The sensitivities are affected by a number of local or indirect market factors. Examples of these factors include hydrology, local energy market supply/demand balances, regional fuel supply issues, regional competition, bidding strategies and regulatory interventions such as price caps. Operational flexibility changes the shape of our sensitivities. For instance, certain power plants may limit downside exposure by reducing dispatch in low market environments. Volume variation also affects our commodity exposure. The volume sold under contracts or retail concessions can vary based on weather and economic conditions resulting in a higher or lower volume of sales in spot markets. Thermal unit availability and hydrology can affect the generation output available for sale and can affect the marginal unit setting power prices.

In the US and Utilities SBU, the generation businesses are largely contracted but may have residual risk to the extent contracts are not perfectly indexed to the business drivers. IPL primarily generates energy to meet its retail customer demand; however, it opportunistically sells surplus economic energy into wholesale markets at market prices.

In the South America SBU, our business in Chile owns assets in the central and northern regions of the country and has a portfolio of contract sales in both. In the central region, the contract sales generally cover the efficient generation from our coal-fired and hydroelectric assets. Any residual spot price risk will primarily be driven by the amount of hydrological inflows. In the case of low hydroelectric generation, spot price exposure is capped by the ability to dispatch our natural gas/diesel assets, the price of which depends on fuel pricing at the time required. There is a small amount of coal generation in the northern region that is not covered by the portfolio of contract sales and therefore subject to spot price risk. In both regions, under normal hydrology conditions, coal-firing generation sets the price. However, when there are spikes in price due to lower hydrology and higher demand, gas or oil-linked fuels generally set power prices. In Colombia, we operate under a short-term sales strategy and have commodity exposure to unhedged volumes. Because we own hydroelectric assets there, contracts are not indexed to fuel. Additionally, in Brazil, the hydroelectric generating facility is covered by contract sales. Under normal hydrological volatility, spot price risk is mitigated through a regulated sharing mechanism across all hydroelectric generators in the country. Under drier conditions, the sharing mechanism may not be sufficient to cover the business' contract position, and therefore it may have to purchase power at spot prices driven by the cost of thermal generation.

In the MCAC SBU, our businesses have commodity exposure on unhedged volumes. Panama is highly contracted under a portfolio of fixed volume contract sales. To the extent hydrological inflows are greater than or less than the contract sales volume, the business will be sensitive to changes in spot power prices which may be driven by oil prices in some time periods. In Dominican Republic, we own natural gas-fired assets contracted under a portfolio of contract sales and a coal-fired asset contracted with a single contract, and both contract and spot prices may move with commodity prices. Additionally, the contract levels do not always match our generation availability and our assets may be sellers of spot prices in excess of contract levels or a net buyer in the spot market to satisfy contract obligations.

In the Eurasia SBU, our Kilroot facility operates on a short-term sales strategy. To the extent that variable energy margin is unhedged, the commodity risk at our Kilroot business is to the clean dark spread, which is the difference between electricity price and our coal-based variable dispatch cost, including emissions. Natural gas-fired generators set power prices for many periods, so higher natural gas prices generally expand margins and higher coal or emissions prices reduce them. Similarly, increased wind generators displace higher cost generation, potentially reducing Kilroot's margins, and vice versa. Two steam gas generating units at Ballylumford were shut down at the end of 2018 having reached the end of their economic lives. The open cycle gas turbines at both Ballylumford and Kilroot will continue to operate as peaking units at times of high demand. Our Mong Duong business has minimal exposure to commodity price risk as it has no merchant exposure and fuel is subject to a pass-through mechanism.

Foreign Exchange Rate Risk — In the normal course of business, we are exposed to foreign currency risk and other foreign operations risks that arise from investments in foreign subsidiaries and affiliates. A key component of these risks stems from the fact that some of our foreign subsidiaries and affiliates utilize currencies other than our consolidated reporting currency, the USD. Additionally, certain of our foreign subsidiaries and affiliates have entered into monetary obligations in USD or currencies other than their own functional currencies. We have varying degrees of exposure to changes in the exchange rate between the USD and the following currencies: Argentine peso, British pound, Brazilian real, Chilean peso, Colombian peso, Dominican peso, Euro, Indian rupee, and Mexican peso. These subsidiaries and affiliates have attempted to limit potential foreign exchange exposure by entering into revenue contracts that adjust to changes in foreign exchange rates. We also use foreign currency forwards, swaps and options, where possible, to manage our risk related to certain foreign currency fluctuations.

AES enters into foreign currency hedges to protect economic value of the business and minimize impact of foreign exchange rate fluctuations to AES' portfolio. While protecting cash flows, the hedging strategy is also designed to reduce forward-looking earnings foreign exchange volatility. Due to variation of timing and amount between cash distribution and earnings exposure, the hedge impact may not fully cover the earnings exposure on a realized basis, which could result in greater volatility in earnings. The largest foreign exchange risks over a 12-month forward-looking period stem from the following currencies: Argentine peso, Brazilian real, Colombian peso, Euro, British pound, and Indian Rupee. As of December 31, 2018, assuming a 10% USD appreciation, cash distributions attributable to foreign subsidiaries exposed to movement in the exchange rate of the Argentine peso and Euro each are projected to be reduced by $5 million, and the Colombian peso, Brazilian real, British pound and Indian Rupee each are projected to be impacted by less than $5 million. These numbers have been produced by applying a one-time 10% USD appreciation to forecasted exposed cash distributions for 2019 coming from the respective subsidiaries exposed to the currencies listed above, net of the impact of outstanding hedges and holding all other variables constant. The numbers presented above are net of any transactional gains/losses. These sensitivities may change in the future as new hedges are executed or existing hedges are unwound. Additionally,

updates to the forecasted cash distributions exposed to foreign exchange risk may result in further modification. The sensitivities presented do not capture the impacts of any administrative market restrictions or currency inconvertibility.

Interest Rate Risks — We are exposed to risk resulting from changes in interest rates as a result of our issuance of variable and fixed-rate debt, as well as interest rate swap, cap, floor and option agreements.

Decisions on the fixed-floating debt mix are made to be consistent with the risk factors faced by individual businesses or plants. Depending on whether a plant's capacity payments or revenue stream is fixed or varies with inflation, we partially hedge against interest rate fluctuations by arranging fixed-rate or variable-rate financing. In certain cases, particularly for non-recourse financing, we execute interest rate swap, cap and floor agreements to effectively fix or limit the interest rate exposure on the underlying financing. Most of our interest rate risk is related to non-recourse financings at our businesses.

As of December 31, 2018, the portfolio's pre-tax earnings exposure for 2019 to a one-time 100-basis-point increase in interest rates for our Argentine peso, Brazilian real, Chilean peso, Colombian peso, Euro and USD denominated debt would be approximately $20 million on interest expense for the debt denominated in these currencies. These amounts do not take into account the historical correlation between these interest rates.

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Stockholders and the Board of Directors of The AES Corporation:

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of The AES Corporation (the Company) as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss), changes in equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2018, and the related notes and the financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15(a) (collectively referred to as the “consolidated financial statements”). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company at December 31, 2018 and 2017, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2018, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB), the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2018, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (2013 framework) and our report dated February 26, 2019, expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

Adoption of New Accounting Standards

As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company changed its method of accounting for revenue as a result of the adoption of Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), and the amendments in ASUs 2015-14, 2016-08, 2016-10, 2016-12, 2016-20, 2017-10 and 2017-13 effective January 1, 2018.

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

We have served as the Company's auditor since 2008.

Tysons, Virginia

February 26, 2019

THE AES CORPORATION

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

DECEMBER 31, 2018 AND 2017

See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

THE AES CORPORATION

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2018**,** 2017**, AND** 2016

Showing the first 8K of 325K characters. Open the full section

None.

Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

The Company maintains disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports that the Company files or submits under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC's rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to the CEO and CFO, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures.

The Company carried out the evaluation required by Rules 13a-15(b) and 15d-15(b), under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including the CEO and CFO, of the effectiveness of our “disclosure controls and procedures” (as defined in the Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)). Based upon this evaluation, the CEO and CFO concluded that as of December 31, 2018, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective.

Management's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Management of the Company is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act. The Company's internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with GAAP and includes those policies and procedures that:

Management, including our CEO and CFO, does not expect that our internal controls will prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. In addition, any evaluation of the effectiveness of controls is subject to risks that those internal controls may become inadequate in future periods because of changes in business conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures deteriorates.

Management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2018. In making this assessment, management used the criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission ("COSO") in 2013. Based on this assessment, management believes that the Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2018.

The effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2018, has been audited by Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report, which appears herein.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting:

There were no changes that occurred during the quarter ended December 31, 2018 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Stockholders and the Board of Directors of The AES Corporation:

Opinion on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

We have audited The AES Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2018, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (2013 framework) (the COSO criteria). In our opinion, The AES Corporation (the Company) maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2018, based on the COSO criteria.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB), the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss), changes in equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2018, and the related notes and financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15(a) (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”), and our report dated February 26, 2019, expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

Basis for Opinion

The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects.

Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Definition and Limitations of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Tysons, Virginia

February 26, 2019

None.

PART III

The following information is incorporated by reference from the Registrant's Proxy Statement for the Registrant's 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders which the Registrant expects will be filed on or around March 6, 2019 (the "2019 Proxy Statement"):

Certain information regarding executive officers required by this Item is presented as a supplementary item in Part I hereof (pursuant to Instruction 3 to Item 401(b) of Regulation S-K). The other information required by this Item, to the extent not included above, will be contained in our 2019 Proxy Statement and is herein incorporated by reference.

The information required by Item 402 of Regulation S-K is contained in the 2019 Proxy Statement under "Director Compensation" and "Executive Compensation" (excluding the information under the caption “Report of the Compensation Committee”) and is incorporated herein by reference.

The information required by Item 407(e)(5) of Regulation S-K is contained under the caption “Report of the Compensation Committee Report” of the Proxy Statement. Such information shall not be deemed to be “filed.”

See the information contained under the heading Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners, Directors, and Executive Officers of the 2019 Proxy Statement, which information is incorporated herein by reference.

The following table provides information about shares of AES common stock that may be issued under AES' equity compensation plans, as of December 31, 2018:

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans (As of December 31, 2018**)**

issuance under outstanding awards, are not available for future issuance and thus the amount of 105,341 shares is not included in Column (c) above.

The information regarding related party transactions required by this item is included in the 2019 Proxy Statement found under the headings Transactions with Related Persons and Board and Committee Governance Matters and are incorporated herein by reference.

The information required by this Item 14 is included in the 2019 Proxy Statement under the headings Information Regarding The Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, Audit Fees, Audit Related Fees, and Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures and is incorporated herein by reference.

PART IV

Schedule I—Financial Information of Registrant

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the Company has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Company and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

THE AES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES

Schedules other than that listed above are omitted as the information is either not applicable, not required, or has been furnished in the consolidated financial statements or notes thereto included in Item 8 hereof.

See Notes to Schedule I

S-1

THE AES CORPORATION

SCHEDULE I CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF PARENT

BALANCE SHEETS

See Notes to Schedule I.

S-2

THE AES CORPORATION

SCHEDULE I CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF PARENT

STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

See Notes to Schedule I.

S-3

THE AES CORPORATION

SCHEDULE I CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF PARENT

STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2018**,** 2017**, AND** 2016

See Notes to Schedule I.

S-4

THE AES CORPORATION

SCHEDULE I CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF PARENT

STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

See Notes to Schedule I.

S-5

THE AES CORPORATION

SCHEDULE I

NOTES TO SCHEDULE I

1. Application of Significant Accounting Principles

The Schedule I Condensed Financial Information of the Parent includes the accounts of The AES Corporation (the “Parent Company”) and certain holding companies.

ACCOUNTING FOR SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES — The Parent Company has accounted for the earnings of its subsidiaries on the equity method in the financial information.

INCOME TAXES — Positions taken on the Parent Company's income tax return which satisfy a more-likely-than-not threshold will be recognized in the financial statements. The income tax expense or benefit computed for the Parent Company reflects the tax assets and liabilities on a stand-alone basis and the effect of filing a consolidated U.S. income tax return with certain other affiliated companies as well as effects of U.S. tax law reform enacted in 2017.

ACCOUNTS AND NOTES RECEIVABLE FROM SUBSIDIARIES — Amounts have been shown in current or long-term assets based on terms in agreements with subsidiaries, but payment is dependent upon meeting conditions precedent in the subsidiary loan agreements.

2. Debt

Senior and Secured Notes and Loans Payable ($ in millions)

FUTURE MATURITIES OF RECOURSE DEBT — As of December 31, 2018 scheduled maturities are presented in the following table (in millions):

3. Dividends from Subsidiaries and Affiliates

Cash dividends received from consolidated subsidiaries were $1.9 billion, $1.2 billion and $1 billion for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively. For the year ended December 31, 2018, $1.2 billion of the dividends paid to the Parent Company are derived from the sale of business interests and are classified as an investing activity for cash flow purposes. All other dividends are classified as operating activities. There were no cash dividends received from affiliates accounted for by the equity method for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016.

S-6

4. Guarantees and Letters of Credit

GUARANTEES — In connection with certain of its project financing, acquisition and power purchase agreements, the Parent Company has expressly undertaken limited obligations and commitments, most of which will only be effective or will be terminated upon the occurrence of future events. These obligations and commitments, excluding those collateralized by letter of credit and other obligations discussed below, were limited as of December 31, 2018 by the terms of the agreements, to an aggregate of approximately $712 million, representing 34 agreements with individual exposures ranging up to $157 million. These amounts exclude normal and customary representations and warranties in agreements for the sale of assets (including ownership in associated legal entities) where the associated risk is considered to be nominal.

LETTERS OF CREDIT — At December 31, 2018, the Parent Company had $78 million in letters of credit outstanding under the senior secured credit facility, representing 23 agreements with individual exposures up to $49 million, and $368 million in letters of credit outstanding under the senior unsecured credit facility, representing 10 agreements with individual exposures ranging from $1 million to $247 million. During 2018, the Parent Company paid letter of credit fees ranging from 1% to 3% per annum on the outstanding amounts.

S-7