AES 10-Q 2021-09-30

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

For the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2021

or

Commission file number 1-12291

THE AES CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

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 ☒ No ☐

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 ☒ No ☐

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 ☐ No ☒

The number of shares outstanding of Registrant’s Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, on November 1, 2021 was 666,713,829.

The AES Corporation

Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended September 30, 2021

Table of Contents

1 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2021 Form 10-Q

Glossary of Terms

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

2 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2021 Form 10-Q

PART I: FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

(Unaudited)

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

3 | The AES Corporation

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations

(Unaudited)

Showing the first 8K of 224K characters. Open the full section

The condensed consolidated financial statements included in Item 1.—Financial Statements of this Form 10-Q and the discussions contained herein should be read in conjunction with our 2020 Form 10-K.

Forward-Looking Information

The following discussion may contain forward-looking statements regarding us, our business, prospects and our results of operations, including our expectations regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our business, that are subject to certain risks and uncertainties posed by many factors and events that could cause our actual business, prospects and results of operations to differ materially from those that may be anticipated by such forward-looking statements. These statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding management’s intents, beliefs, and current expectations and typically contain, but are not limited to, the terms “anticipate,” “potential,” “expect,” “forecast,” “target,” “will,” “would,” “intend,” “believe,” “project,” “estimate,” “plan,” and similar words. Forward-looking statements are not intended to be a guarantee of future results, but instead constitute current expectations based on reasonable assumptions. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those described in Item 1A.—Risk Factors of this Form 10-Q, Item 1A.—Risk Factors and Item 7.—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of our 2020 Form 10-K and subsequent filings with the SEC.

Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements which speak only as of the date of this report. We undertake no obligation to revise any forward-looking statements in order to reflect events or circumstances that may subsequently arise. If we do update one or more forward-looking statements, no inference should be drawn that we will make additional updates with respect to those or other forward-looking statements. Readers are urged to carefully review and consider the various disclosures made by us in this report and in our other reports filed with the SEC that advise of the risks and factors that may affect our business.

Overview of Our Business

We are a diversified power generation and utility company organized into the following 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). For additional information regarding our business, see Item 1.—Business of our 2020 Form 10-K.

We have two lines of business: generation and utilities. Each of our SBUs participates in our first business line, generation, in which we own and/or operate power plants to generate and sell power to customers, such as utilities, industrial users, and other intermediaries. Our US and Utilities SBU participates in our second business line, utilities, in which 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.

Executive Summary

Compared with last year, third quarter diluted earnings per share from continuing operations increased $0.98 to $0.48. This increase reflects higher prior year impairments and losses on sale of businesses, and higher margins at our US and Utilities SBU at new renewables, Southland Energy, and Southland; partially offset by higher income tax expense and lower margins from our South America SBU.

Adjusted EPS, a non-GAAP measure, increased $0.08 to $0.50, mainly reflecting higher contributions from our US and Utilities SBU, including new renewables, Southland Energy, and Southland; and lower Parent Company interest expense; partially offset by lower contributions from our South America SBU and the impact of the inclusion of shares underlying the purchase contract component of our March 2021 equity units issuance.

Compared with last year, diluted earnings per share from continuing operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2021 increased $0.72 to $0.31. This increase is mainly driven by higher margins at our South America SBU largely due to net gains from early contract terminations at Angamos and higher generation at Chivor due to the life extension project completed in the prior year and better hydrology, higher margins at our US and Utilities SBU at Southland and Southland Energy, lower Parent Company interest expense due to realized gains on de-designated interest rate swaps and lower interest rates, a gain on remeasurement of our interest in sPower’s development platform, and a gain due to the issuance of new shares by Fluence, our equity method investment, which was accounted for as a partial disposition; partially offset by higher current year impairments and higher income tax expense.

37 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2021 Form 10-Q

Adjusted EPS, a non-GAAP measure, increased $0.11 to $1.07, mainly reflecting higher contributions from our US and Utilities SBU, including new renewables and Southland Energy, higher generation at Chivor due to the life extension project completed in the prior year and better hydrology, and lower Parent Company interest expense due to realized gains on de-designated interest rate swaps and lower interest rates; partially offset by a higher adjusted tax rate and prior year impacts of a gain on sale of land in the U.S., incremental capitalized interest in Chile, recovery of previously expensed payments from customers in Chile, and the impact of the inclusion of shares underlying the purchase contract component of our March 2021 equity units issuance.

38 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2021 Form 10-Q

39 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2021 Form 10-Q

Overview of Strategic Performance

AES is leading the industry's transition to clean energy by investing in clean power growth and innovative technology businesses. The Company is well-positioned to benefit from very favorable trends in clean power generation, distribution, and supporting technologies.

• Year-to-date 2021, the Company completed construction or the acquisition of 643 MW of renewables and energy storage, primarily including:

◦344 MW of solar and solar plus storage in the US at AES Clean Energy;

◦159 MW Mandacaru and Salinas wind facility in Brazil;

◦59 MW San Fernando solar facility in Colombia; and

◦50 MW Bayasol solar facility in the Dominican Republic.

• Since the Company’s second quarter 2021 earnings call in August, the Company has signed 1,088 MW of renewables and energy storage under long-term PPAs, primarily including 1,076 MW of solar, energy storage, and wind at AES Clean Energy in the US.

• Year-to-date 2021, the Company signed or agreed to acquire 4,000 MW of renewables and energy storage under long-term PPAs, bringing the Company’s backlog to 9,213 MW expected to be completed through 2024, including:

◦2,645 MW under construction; and

• 6,568 MW of renewables signed under long-term PPAs.

40 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2021 Form 10-Q

Review of Consolidated Results of Operations (Unaudited)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---

Showing the first 8K of 155K 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 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 USD, 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 3 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 Exchange Act shall apply to the disclosures contained in this Item 3. For further information regarding market risk, see Item 1A.—Risk Factors, Fluctuations in currency exchange rates may impact our financial results and position; Wholesale power prices are declining in many markets which could impact our operations and opportunities for future growth; We may not be adequately hedged against our exposure to changes in commodity prices or interest rates; and Certain of our businesses are sensitive to variations in weather and hydrology of the 2020 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. 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 2021, we project pre-tax earnings exposure on a 10% move in commodity prices would be less than $(5) million for natural gas, less than $(5) million for oil, less than $(5) million for coal, and less than $(5) million for power. 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 higher 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. At Southland, our existing once-through cooling

71 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2021 Form 10-Q

generation units (“Legacy Assets”) have been requested to continue operating beyond their current retirement date and the OTC policy establishing retirement deadlines has been extended for between one and three years. These assets have contracts in capacity and have seen incremental value in energy revenues.

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. The majority of our PPAs include mechanisms of indexation that adjust the price of energy based on fluctuations in the price of coal, with the specific indices and timing varying by contract, in order to mitigate changes in the price of fuel. For the portion of our contracts not indexed to the price of coal, we have implemented a hedging strategy based on international coal financial instruments for up to three years. In Colombia, we operate under a shorter-term sales strategy with spot market exposure for uncontracted 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 financial and load-following PPA type structures, exposing the business to hydrology-based variance. To the extent hydrological inflows are greater than or less than the contract volumes, the business will be sensitive to changes in spot power prices which may be driven by oil and natural gas prices in some time periods. In the Dominican Republic, we own natural gas-fired assets contracted under a portfolio of contract sales, and both contract and spot prices may move with commodity prices. Additionally, the contract levels do not always match our generation availability; as such, our assets may be selling the excess above contract levels at spot prices or buy the deficit in the spot market to satisfy contractual obligations.

In the Eurasia SBU, our assets operating in Vietnam and Bulgaria have minimal exposure to commodity price risk as it has no or minor 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. Certain of our foreign subsidiaries calculate and pay taxes in currencies other than their own functional currency. We have varying degrees of exposure to changes in the exchange rate between the USD and the following currencies: Argentine peso, Brazilian real, Chilean peso, Colombian peso, Dominican peso, Euro, 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 the 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 distributions 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 the remaining period of 2021 stem from the following currencies: Brazilian real, Colombian peso, and Euro. As of September 30, 2021, assuming a 10% USD appreciation, cash distributions attributable to foreign subsidiaries exposed to movement in the exchange rate of the Euro, Brazilian real, and Colombia peso 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 2021 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.

72 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2021 Form 10-Q

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 September 30, 2021, the portfolio’s pre-tax earnings exposure for 2021 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 less than $5 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.

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

The Company, under the supervision and with the participation of its management, including the Company’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), evaluated the effectiveness of its “disclosure controls and procedures,” as such term is defined in Rule 13a-15(e) under the Exchange Act, as of the end of the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Based on that evaluation, our CEO and CFO have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of September 30, 2021, to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Company in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms, and include controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in such reports is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our CEO and CFO, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures.

Changes in Internal Controls over Financial Reporting

There were no changes that occurred during the fiscal quarter covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

73 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2021 Form 10-Q

PART II: OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 1. 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 condensed 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 September 30, 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 $8 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 New Source Review and other CAA regulations, the Indiana State Implementation Plan (“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

74 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2021 Form 10-Q

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 (SNCR) 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 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. Alto Maipo continues to seek the relevant final approvals from the SEA. A number of lawsuits have been filed in relation to the April 2018 Approval, some of which are still pending. These lawsuits were consolidated into one process by The Second Environmental Tribunal of Santiago. To date, none of the lawsuits have negatively impacted the April 2018 Approval or the construction of the project. 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, and closing arguments were heard June 9-10, 2020. The parties are now awaiting the Tribunal’s decision in the First Arbitration. Also, in August 2018, CNM purported to initiate a separate arbitration against AES Andes 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 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 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 Andes and the Company to CNM’s piercing claims. The hearing on the jurisdictional objections, which was previously scheduled, has been postponed to a date to be determined. 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.

75 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2021 Form 10-Q

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, of approximately $395,000. 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 $263,000. 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. 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. 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 and is currently under review by the SMA. Fines are possible if the SMA determines that non-compliance resulted in an economic benefit. As the charges are currently classified, the maximum fine is approximately $6.5 million USD. However, if the Compliance Program is approved and successfully implemented, the process is expected to conclude without fines and to not generate further action. The cost of proposed Compliance Program is approximately $10.5 million USD.

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 related 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 will take place in November 2021. 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 June 2021, in two constitutional actions concerning the environment, the Valparaiso Court of Appeal ordered the suspension of the operation of the wastewater discharge system of the AES Andes’s Ventanas generation complex, as well as the prohibition of the arrival of vessels with coal in the Quintero Bay, and unloading of coal in the Ventanas port (owned by a third party). The orders were not effective and enforceable while AES Andes and

76 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2021 Form 10-Q

others pursued appellate challenges. On July 28, 2021, AES Andes and the other appellants withdrew the appellate challenges on the basis that AES Andes and the other parties are in compliance with remediation measures imposed by the Maritime Authority. On August 6, the Supreme Court issued a resolution ordering compliance with the court of appeals judgment; however, the prohibition of vessels and suspension of wastewater discharge and coal unloading operations were not made effective since AES Andes and the other parties are in compliance with the remediation measures imposed by the Maritime Authority.

There have been no material changes to the risk factors disclosed in Item 1A.—Risk Factors of our 2020 Form 10-K. Additional risks and uncertainties also may adversely affect our business and operations, including those discussed in Item 2*.—Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations* in this Form 10-Q.

ITEM 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS

The Board has authorized the Company to repurchase stock through a variety of methods, including open market repurchases, purchases by contract (including, without limitation, accelerated stock repurchase programs or 10b5-1 plans) 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 Program does not have an expiration date and can be modified or terminated by the Board of Directors at any time. As of September 30, 2021, $264 million remained available for repurchase under the Program. No repurchases were made by The AES Corporation of its common stock during the third quarter of 2021.

ITEM 3. DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES

None.

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.

None.

77 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2021 Form 10-Q

78 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2021 Form 10-Q

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.