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, 2021.

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 and remediation costs are estimated to be approximately R$10 million to R$41 million ($2 million to $7 million), and there could be additional 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 February 2017, the EPA issued a NOV for DPL Stuart Station, alleging violations of opacity in 2016. On May 31, 2018, Stuart Station was retired, and on December 20, 2019, it was transferred to an unaffiliated third-party purchaser, along with the associated environmental liabilities.

In October 2015, AES Indiana received a similar NOV alleging violations at Petersburg Station. In addition, in February 2016, AES Indiana 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. On August 31, 2020, AES Indiana reached a settlement with the EPA, the DOJ and IDEM, resolving these purported violations of the CAA at Petersburg Station. The settlement agreement, in the form of a proposed judicial consent decree, was approved and entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on March 23, 2021, and includes, among other items, the following requirements: annual caps on NOx and SO2 emissions and more stringent emissions limits than AES Indiana's current Title V air permit; payment of civil penalties totaling $1.5 million; a $5 million environmental mitigation project consisting of the construction and operation of a new, non-emitting source of generation at the site; expenditure of $0.3 million on a state-only environmentally beneficial project to preserve local, ecologically-significant lands; and retirement of Units 1 and 2 prior to July 1, 2023. If AES Indiana does not meet the retirement obligation, it must install a Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction System on Unit 4.

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. Potential outcomes of the CCC determination could include an order requiring AES Redondo Beach to perform a restoration and/or pay fines or penalties. AES Redondo Beach believes that it has meritorious arguments concerning the underlying CCC determination, but there can be no assurances that it will be successful. On March 27, 2020, AES Redondo Beach, LLC sold the site to an unaffiliated third-party purchaser that assumed the obligations contained within these proceedings. On May 26, 2020, CCC staff sent AES a Notice of Violation (NOV) directing AES to submit a Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) application for the removal of the water pumps within the alleged wetlands. AES has submitted the CDP to the permitting authority, the City of Redondo Beach (“the City”), with respect to AES’s plans to disable or remove the pumps. The NOV also directed AES to submit technical analysis regarding additional water pumps located within onsite electrical vaults and a CDP application for their continued operation. AES has responded to the CCC, providing the requested analysis and seeking further discussion with the agency regarding the CDP. On October 14, 2020, the City deemed the CDP application to be complete and indicated a public hearing will be required, at which

time AES must present additional information and analysis on the pumps within the alleged wetlands and the onsite electrical vaults.

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. A number of lawsuits have been filed in relation to the April 2018 Approval. These lawsuits were consolidated into one process in the Second Environmental Tribunal of Santiago ("Tribunal"). In October 2021, the Tribunal issued a ruling in favor of Alto Maipo and the SMA, upholding the validity of the Compliance Plan and dismissing all consolidated lawsuits. This ruling was appealed. The appeal is now in the Chilean Supreme Court, which is considering whether to accept the appeal. Further, in January 2022, Alto Maipo received the definitive interpretation of the RCA´s provisions concerning the authorized times to operate certain vehicles. Accordingly, Alto Maipo intends to request that the Compliance Plan be declared fulfilled and formally closed. If the Compliance Plan is ultimately declared to be fulfilled and closed, and if the above-referenced appeal is dismissed, the Formulation of Charges will be discharged without penalty. Otherwise, Alto Maipo could be subject to penalties, and 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 initiated 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 denied liability and sought a declaration that its termination was wrongful, damages allegedly resulting from that termination, and other relief. CNM alleged that it was entitled to damages ranging from $70 million to $170 million (which included the LC Funds) plus interest and costs, based on various scenarios. Alto Maipo contested these submissions. The evidentiary hearing in the First Arbitration took place May 20-31, 2019, and closing arguments were heard June 9-10, 2020. Also, in August 2018, CNM purported to initiate a separate arbitration against AES Andes and the Company (“Second Arbitration”). In the Second Arbitration, CNM sought to pierce Alto Maipo’s corporate veil and appeared to seek an award holding AES Andes 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 was consolidated into the First Arbitration. In October 2021, the Tribunal issued a final and enforceable Partial Award in favor of Alto Maipo. The Tribunal held, among other things, that Alto Maipo properly terminated the relevant tunneling contract and that Alto Maipo’s draw of the LC Funds was proper. Also, the Tribunal determined that Alto Maipo was entitled to be paid additional damages of nearly $107 million (net after offsets) and that interest would accrue on the total amount of damages awarded until paid by CNM. The Tribunal also dismissed the Second Arbitration as moot. The Tribunal reserved for further proceedings, the issues of the interest to be paid by CNM and, as to all parties, the award of legal fees and costs. To date, CNM has not paid the damages awarded to Alto Maipo. Instead, CNM has made an application for an immaterial correction to the Partial Award. CNM has also filed an application to revise the Partial Award seeking to reduce the net damages awarded to AM to approximately $42 million. Alto Maipo will contest the application for revision. In the meantime, the Tribunal has established the schedule for the next phase of the proceedings relating to interest, fees, and costs. Each of Alto Maipo, AES Andes, 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 Andes for the presence of coal waste on Ventanas beach, and proposed a fine before the Maritime Governor. AES Andes 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 Andes an opportunity to present reports and other evidence to challenge the grounds of the ruling. AES Andes has completed its presentation of evidence and awaits the Maritime Prosecution Office’s decision of the case. In May 2021, AES Andes was notified of an amended Opinion of the Maritime Prosecution Office which extends the alleged liability to a third party and

reduces the proposed fine to AES Andes to approximately $372,000. AES Andes responded to the new Opinion on May 31. On August 18, the Maritime Governor issued a resolution affirming the proposed fine, and on September 8, AES Andes filed an administrative action with the Maritime Governor requesting reconsideration of the fine. On December 28, 2021 the resolution rejecting the reinstatement appeal was notified and on January 17, 2022 AES Andes filed an appeal against that ruling. AES Andes believes that it has meritorious defenses to the allegations; however, there are no assurances that it will be successful in defending this action.

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 over $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. In August 2020, at the request of the relevant AES companies, the case was transferred to a different civil court. Preliminary hearings are ongoing in that court. 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 October 2019, the Superintendency of the Environment (the "SMA") notified AES Andes 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. AES Andes has submitted a proposed “Compliance Program” to the SMA for the Ventanas Complex. The latest version of this Compliance Program was submitted on May 26, 2021. On December 30, 2021, the Compliance Program was approved by the SMA. However an ex officio action was brought by the SMA due to alleged exceedances of generation limits, which would require the Company to reduce SO2, NOx and PM emissions in order to achieve the emissions offset established in the Compliance Program. On January 6, 2022, AES Andes filed a reposition with the SMA seeking modification of the means for compliance with the ex officio action. The reposition filing is currently under review by the SMA. The effects of the ex officio action are suspended until the reposition is resolved, but the SMA ruling is otherwise unaffected. Fines are possible if the SMA determines there is an unsatisfactory execution of the Compliance Program. The cost of proposed Compliance Program is approximately $10.8 million.

In March 2020, Mexico’s Comisión Federal de Electricidad (“CFE”) served an arbitration demand upon AES Mérida III. CFE makes allegations that AES Mérida III is in breach of its obligations under a power and capacity purchase agreement ("Contract") between the two parties, which allegations relate to CFE’s own failure to provide fuel within the specifications of the Contract. CFE seeks to recover approximately $190 million in payments made to AES Merida under the Contract as well as approximately $431 million in alleged damages for having to acquire power from alternative sources in the Yucatan Peninsula. AES Mérida has filed an answer denying liability to CFE and asserting a counterclaim for damages due to CFE’s breach of its obligations. The parties submitted their respective initial briefs and supporting evidence in December 2020. After additional briefing, the evidentiary hearing took place in November 2021. Closing arguments are scheduled for May 2022. Subsequently, the arbitration Tribunal will issue its decision in the case. AES Mérida believes that it has meritorious defenses and claims and will assert them vigorously in the arbitration; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In February 2022, a lawsuit was filed in Dominican Republic civil court against the Company. The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of over 425 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 over $600 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 Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in this proceeding; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.