Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

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 cannot be estimated as of December 31, 2019.

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 ($1 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 ($7 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 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. On May 31, 2018, Stuart and Killen Stations were retired, and on December 20, 2019, they were transferred to an unaffiliated third-party purchaser, along with the associated environmental liabilities. In October 2015, IPL received a similar NOV alleging violations at Petersburg Station. In addition, 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 IPL 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. 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”) a definitive interpretation of the RCA’s provisions concerning the authorized times to operate certain vehicles. In addition, Alto Maipo must obtain the SEA’s final approval concerning the control, discharge, and treatment of Infiltration Water. Alto Maipo continues to seek the relevant final approvals from the SEA. 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. In July 2019, a separate lawsuit was filed in the Court of Appeals of Santiago (“CAS”) seeking emergency relief to invalidate the April 2018 Approval. Alto Maipo believes there is no merit to the lawsuit, which remains pending. Furthermore, in September 2019, a petition was filed in the CAS requesting an order stopping certain construction works immediately. The CAS rejected the petition. 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 at least $236 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 that it alleges result from that termination, and other relief. CNM alleges that it is entitled to damages ranging from $70 million to $170 million (which include the LC Funds) plus interest and costs, based on various scenarios. Alto Maipo has contested these submissions. The evidentiary hearing in the First Arbitration took place May 20-31, 2019. Post-hearing briefs were submitted in September 2019. One of the three arbitrators on the arbitral Tribunal has been replaced. The new Tribunal has determined not to repeat the May 2019 evidentiary hearing and has scheduled closing arguments for June 10-11, 2020. 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 holding AES Gener and the Company jointly and severally liable to pay any alleged net amounts that are found to be due to CNM in the First Arbitration or otherwise. The Second Arbitration has been consolidated into the First Arbitration. The arbitral Tribunal has bifurcated the Second Arbitration to determine in the first instance the

jurisdictional objections raised by AES Gener and the Company to CNM’s piercing claims. The hearing on the jurisdictional objections will take place in or around October 2020. Each of Alto Maipo, AES Gener, and the Company believes it has meritorious claims and/or defenses and will pursue its interests vigorously; however, there can be no assurances that each will be successful in its efforts.

In October 2017, the Maritime Prosecution Office from Valparaíso issued a ruling alleging responsibility by AES Gener for the presence of coal waste on Ventanas beach, and proposed a fine before the Maritime Governor, of approximately $380,000. AES Gener submitted its statement of defense, denying the allegations. An evidentiary stage was concluded and then re-opened by order of the Maritime Governor on February 5, 2019 to allow AES Gener a six-month period to present reports and other evidence to challenge the grounds of the ruling. In September 2019, this period was extended for an additional six months, in order to allow the execution of a field test in the bay of Ventanas. AES Gener believes that it has meritorious defenses to the allegations; however, there are no assurances that it will be successful in defending this action.

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. The ROK has 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 $500 million on its counterclaims. The AES Claimants believe that the ROK’s defenses and counterclaims are without merit and have contested the ROK’s submissions on these issues. An arbitrator was appointed to decide the case. The final evidentiary hearing took place July 22-26, 2019. The parties are awaiting the arbitrator’s decision. 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.

In February 2019, a separate lawsuit was filed in Dominican Republic civil court against the Company, AES Puerto Rico, two other AES affiliates, and an unaffiliated company and its principal. The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of over 200 Dominican claimants, living and deceased, and appears to seek relief relating to CCRs that were delivered to the Dominican Republic in 2003 and 2004. The lawsuit generally alleges that the CCRs caused personal injuries and deaths and demands $900 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.

In March 2019, the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (“DNER”) issued an Administrative Order, which later amended (collectively, the “DNER Order”), alleging that AES Puerto Rico, LP (“AES Puerto Rico”) failed to comply with certain DNER requests for documents and information, that AES Puerto Rico has contaminated groundwater in excess of certain state water quality standards, and requesting AES Puerto Rico to submit a corrective/remedial action plan for DNER’s review and approval, among others. The DNER Order also proposes an administrative fine of $160,000. In April 2019, AES Puerto Rico timely filed its response to the DNER Order contesting the alleged violations and the proposed fine and also moved to dismiss the case. The Hearing Examiner assigned to the case denied AES Puerto Rico’s request for dismissal. In October 2019, the Hearing Examiner granted DNER's request to postpone the filing of the prehearing report and scheduling of the prehearing conference. The parties are currently discussing a potential resolution of the Order. AES Puerto Rico believes that it has meritorious defenses, but there are no assurances that it will be successful in defending this action should it proceed to a hearing.

In October 2019, the Superintendency of the Environment (the "SMA") notified AES Gener of certain alleged breaches associated with the environmental permit of the Ventanas Complex, initiating a sanctioning process through Exempt Resolution N° 1 / ROL D-129-2019. The alleged charges include exceeding generation limits, failing to reduce emissions during episodes of poor air quality, exceeding limits on discharges to the sea, and exceeding noise limits. As the charges are currently classified, the maximum fine is approximately $6.5 million. On October 14, 2019, the SMA notified AES Gener of other alleged breaches at the Guacolda Complex under Exempt Resolution N° 1 / ROL D-146-2019. These allegations include failure to comply with all measures to mitigate atmospheric emissions, failure to comply with mitigation measures to avoid solid fuel discharges to the sea, failure to perform temperature monitoring in intake and water discharge at Unit 3, and a one-day exceedance of the seawater discharge limits. As the Guacolda charges are currently classified, the maximum fine is approximately $4 million. For each complex, additional fines are possible if the SMA determines that non-compliance resulted in an economic benefit. AES Gener has submitted proposed "Compliance Programs" to the SMA for the Ventanas Complex and the Guacolda Complex, respectively. If these submissions are approved by the SMA and satisfactorily fulfilled by AES Gener, the process would be concluded without sanctions and not generate further action.