AES 10-Q 2023-06-30

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

For the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2023

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 August 1, 2023 was 669,629,035.

The AES Corporation

Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended June 30, 2023

Table of Contents

1 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2023 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 | June 30, 2023 Form 10-Q

3 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2023 Form 10-Q

PART I: FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited)

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

4 | The AES Corporation

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations

(Unaudited)

Showing the first 8K of 216K 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 2022 Form 10-K.

Forward-Looking Information

The following discussion may contain forward-looking statements regarding us, our business, prospects and our results of operations, 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 2022 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 SBUs, mainly organized by technology: Renewables (solar, wind, energy storage, hydro, biomass, and landfill gas), Utilities (AES Indiana, AES Ohio, and AES El Salvador), Energy Infrastructure (natural gas, LNG, coal, pet coke, diesel, and oil), and New Energy Technologies (green hydrogen, Fluence, Uplight, and 5B). Our businesses in Chile, which have a mix of generation sources, including renewables, are also included within the Energy Infrastructure SBU, as the generation from all sources is pooled to service our existing PPAs. In our 2022 Form 10-K, the management reporting structure and the Company’s reportable segments were mainly organized by geographic regions. In March 2023, we announced internal management changes as a part of our ongoing strategy to align our business to meet our customers’ needs and deliver on our major strategic objectives. The results of our operations are now reported along our four newly formed technology-based SBUs. For additional information regarding our business, see Item 1.—Business of our 2022 Form 10-K.

We have two lines of business: generation and utilities. Our Renewables, Utilities and Energy Infrastructure SBUs participate 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 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. Our New Energy Technologies SBU includes investments in new and innovative technologies to support leading-edge greener energy solutions.

Executive Summary

Compared with last year, second quarter net loss decreased $117 million, from $136 million to $19 million. This decrease is the result of favorable contributions at the Utilities, Renewables, and New Energy Technologies SBUs, partially offset by lower contributions at the Energy Infrastructure SBU.

Adjusted EBITDA, a non-GAAP measure, decreased $117 million, from $686 million to $569 million, mainly driven by higher cost of sales and lower thermal dispatch substituted with renewable sources at the Energy Infrastructure SBU; partially offset by lower losses from affiliates at the New Energy Technologies SBU mainly attributable to improved margins on a new product line, favorable weather conditions impacting demand and increased rider revenues at the Utilities SBU, and new businesses operating in our portfolio and favorable wind and hydrological conditions at the Renewables SBU.

35 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2023 Form 10-Q

Adjusted EBITDA with Tax Attributes, a non-GAAP measure, decreased $115 million, from $722 million to $607 million primarily due to the drivers above.

Compared with last year, second quarter diluted loss per share from continuing operations decreased $0.21, from $0.27 to $0.06. This decrease is mainly driven by lower long-lived asset impairments in the current year, partially offset by the recognition of unrealized losses due to the termination of a PPA and higher cost of sales at the Energy Infrastructure SBU.

Adjusted EPS, a non-GAAP measure, decreased $0.13 from $0.34 to $0.21, mainly driven by lower contributions from the Energy Infrastructure SBU.

Compared with last year, net income for the six months ended June 30, 2023 increased $135 million, from $35 million to $170 million. This increase is the result of favorable contributions at the New Energy Technologies and Renewables SBUs, partially offset by lower contributions at the Energy Infrastructure and Utilities SBUs.

Adjusted EBITDA, a non-GAAP measure, decreased $110 million, from $1,307 million to $1,197 million, mainly driven by higher cost of sales and lower thermal dispatch substituted with renewable sources at the Energy Infrastructure SBU, and unfavorable weather conditions impacting demand and higher fixed costs at the Utilities SBU; partially offset by lower losses from affiliates at the New Energy Technologies SBU mainly attributable to improved margins on a new product line, and favorable wind and hydrological conditions and new businesses operating in our portfolio at the Renewables SBU.

Adjusted EBITDA with Tax Attributes, a non-GAAP measure, decreased $108 million, from $1,356 million to $1,248 million, primarily due to the drivers above.

Compared with last year, diluted earnings per share from continuing operations for the six months ended June 30, 2023 increased $0.26, from a loss of $0.10 to earnings of $0.16. This increase is mainly driven by lower long-lived asset impairments in the current year and lower losses of affiliates at the New Energy Technologies SBU, partially offset by higher unrealized foreign currency losses, the recognition of unrealized losses due to the termination of a PPA and higher cost of sales at the Energy Infrastructure SBU, and higher costs due to an accelerated growth plan at the Renewables SBU.

Adjusted EPS, a non-GAAP measure, decreased $0.12 from $0.55 to $0.43, mainly driven by lower contributions from the Renewables SBU and lower margins due to unfavorable weather conditions at the Utilities SBU, partially offset by lower losses of affiliates at the New Energy Technologies SBU.

36 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2023 Form 10-Q

Showing the first 8K of 149K 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 price trends 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 may experience significant volatility in our 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 2022 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, have contracted electricity obligations greater than supply, or operate 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. As of June 30, 2023, we project pre-tax earnings exposure on a 10% (uncorrelated) increase in commodity prices to be less than a $5 million gain for power, gas and coal and a less than $5 million loss for oil. 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 uncontracted downside exposure occurs with lower power, lower 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 contract terms, 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.

67 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2023 Form 10-Q

In the Energy Infrastructure 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 generation units (“Legacy Assets”) in California are permitted to operate through the end of 2023. These assets have contracts in capacity and have seen incremental value in energy revenues through 2023 and signed agreements in April to extend operations for select units through 2026 subject to further state level approvals expected later this year.

The AES Andes business in Chile owns assets in the central and northern regions of the country and has a portfolio of contract sales in both. A significant portion 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 from certain changes in the price of fuel. In the Dominican Republic, we own natural gas plants 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 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. Our assets operating in Vietnam and Bulgaria have minimal exposure to commodity price risk as they have no or minor merchant exposure and fuel is subject to a pass-through mechanism.

In the Renewables SBU, our businesses have commodity exposure on unhedged volumes and resource volatility. 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. In Brazil, the hydroelectric and other renewable generating facilities are 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. Our Renewables businesses in Panama are 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.

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. Our exposure to certain of these currencies may be material and economic mechanisms to hedge certain of these risks may not always be available. 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.

AES has unhedged forward-looking earnings foreign exchange deterioration risk from the Argentina peso that could be material. Additionally, as of June 30, 2023, assuming a 10% USD appreciation, cash distributions attributable to foreign subsidiaries in the Euro may be exposed to exchange rate movement of less than a $5 million loss. These numbers have been produced by applying a one-time 10% USD appreciation to forecasted exposed cash distributions for 2023 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 or 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 in convertibility.

68 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2023 Form 10-Q

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 June 30, 2023, the portfolio’s pre-tax earnings exposure 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 $25 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 June 30, 2023, 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.

69 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2023 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 June 30, 2023. Pursuant to SEC amendments Item 103 of SEC Regulation S-K, AES’ policy is to disclose environmental legal proceedings to which a governmental authority is a party if such proceedings are reasonably expected to result in monetary sanctions of greater than or equal to $1 million.

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$15 million to R$60 million ($3 million to $12 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 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

70 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2023 Form 10-Q

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’ 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 October 2015, AES Indiana received an NOV alleging violations of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), the Indiana State Implementation Plan (“SIP”), and the Title V operating permit related to alleged particulate and opacity violations at Petersburg Station Unit 3. 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 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 the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (“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.

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 (“Civil Court”). Preliminary hearings have taken place. The parties are awaiting the Civil Court’s ruling on the AES respondents’ motions to dismiss the lawsuit. 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. On January 17, 2023, the SMA approved street paving measures, or alternatively a program providing heaters for community members, as the means to satisfy the air emissions offsets in the approved Compliance Plan. The cost of proposed Compliance Program is approximately $10.8 million USD. On April 21, 2023, the SMA notified AES Andes of a resolution alleging an additional “serious” non-compliance of the Ventanas Complex failing to reduce emissions during episodes of poor air quality. On May 24, 2023, AES Andes submitted disclaimers to the SMA in response to this resolution. AES Andes plans to vigorously defend itself through the administrative process,

71 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2023 Form 10-Q

but there are no guarantees that it will be successful. Fines are possible if AES Andes is unsuccessful in its defense of the April 2023 resolution and/or if the SMA determines there is an unsatisfactory execution of the Compliance Program approved in connection with the October 2019 sanctioning process.

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 $200 million in payments made to AES Mérida under the Contract as well as approximately $480 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 were heard in May 2022. In November 2022, the arbitration Tribunal issued is decision in the case, rejecting CFE’s claims for damages and granting AES Mérida a net amount of damages on AES Mérida’s counterclaims (“Award”). There are ongoing proceedings in the Mexican courts concerning AES Mérida’s attempt to enforce the Award and CFE’s attempt to challenge the Award. AES Mérida believes that it has meritorious defenses and claims and will assert them vigorously in this dispute; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

On May 12, 2021, the Mexican Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (the “Authority”) initiated an environmental audit at the Termoelectrica del Peñoles (“TEP”) thermal generating facility. On January 20, 2023 TEP was notified of the resolution issued by the Authority, which alleges breaches of air emission regulations, including the failure to submit reports. The resolution imposes a fine of $27,615,140 pesos (approximately USD $1.6 million). On March 3, 2023, the facility filed a nullity judgment to challenge such resolution. Because such nullity judgment has not yet been admitted, TEP filed an amparo action, which was admitted on March 28, 2023. The judicial authority has not yet ruled on the amparo action. 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.

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.

On July 25, 2022, AES Puerto Rico, LP (“AES-PR”) received from the EPA an NOV alleging certain violations of the CAA at AES-PR’s coal-fired power facility in Guayama, Puerto Rico. The NOV alleges AES-PR exceeded an emission limit and did not continuously operate certain monitoring equipment, conduct certain analyses and testing, maintain complete records, and submit certain reports as required by the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. The NOV further alleges AES-PR did not comply fully with the facility’s Title V operating permit. AES-PR is engaging in discussions with the EPA about the NOV. AES-PR will defend its interests, but we cannot predict the outcome of this matter at this time. However, settlements and litigated outcomes of CAA claims alleged against other coal-fired power plants have required companies to pay civil penalties and undertake remedial measures.

In April 2022, the Superintendency of the Environment (the "SMA") notified AES Andes of certain alleged breaches associated with the construction of the Mesamávida wind project, initiating a sanctioning process. The alleged charges include untimely implementation of road improvement measures and road use schedules and the failure to identify all noise receptors closest to the first construction phases of the project. On June 23, 2022, the SMA addressed the charges to Energía Eólica Mesamávida SpA. On June 28, 2022, Energía Eólica Mesamávida SpA submitted a proposed compliance program, with an estimated cost of $4.3 million, which was subsequently approved by the SMA. On November 9, 2022, opponents to the project submitted before the Third Environmental Court a judicial action challenging the approval of this compliance program. On March 7, 2023, the Third Environmental Court rejected the third-party judicial action against the Compliance Program. The deadline to appeal the decision has passed and no appeals were submitted. If the SMA determines there is an unsatisfactory execution of the compliance program, fines are possible.

On January 26, 2023, the SMA notified Alto Maipo SpA of four alleged charges relating to the Alto Maipo facility, all which are categorized by the SMA as “serious.” The alleged charges include untimely completion of

72 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2023 Form 10-Q

intake works and insufficient capture by the provisional works, irrigation water outlet and canal contemplated by an agreement with local communities; non-compliance with the details of the forest management plans and intervention in unauthorized areas; construction of a road in a restricted paleontological area; and unlawful moving of fauna. On February 16, 2023, the Alto Maipo project submitted a compliance program, to which the SMA provided observations. On June 6, 2023, Alto Maipo responded to the SMA’s observations by submitting a revised compliance program, which is currently under consideration by the SMA. In late June and early July 2023, third-party opponents submitted observations to the compliance program, claiming that the proposal to address the intake works charges is inadequate. The costs of any such compliance program are uncertain. If a compliance program is not approved by or executed to the satisfaction of the SMA, fines, revocation of the facility’s RCA environmental permit approved by the SMA, or closure are possible outcomes for such alleged serious violations under applicable regulations.

There have been no material changes to the risk factors disclosed in Item 1A.—Risk Factors of our 2022 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 June 30, 2023, $264 million remained available for repurchase under the Program. No repurchases were made by The AES Corporation of its common stock during the second quarter of 2023.

ITEM 3. DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES

None.

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.

Trading Arrangements

None of the Company’s directors or “officers,” as defined in Rule 16a-1(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), adopted, modified, or terminated a “Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement” or a “non-Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement,” as each term is defined in Item 408 of Regulation S-K, during the Company’s fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2023.

Amended and Restated By-Laws

On August 1, 2023, the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) approved the Amended and Restated By-Laws, effective as of such date (the “Amended and Restated By-Laws”). The Amended and Restated By-Laws include certain changes to the procedures by which stockholders may recommend nominees to the Board, among other updates, including to:

• implement certain revisions to conform to recent amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”), including (i) giving the Company the ability to provide the details for an adjourned meeting in any manner permitted by the DGCL and (ii) eliminating the requirement that the Company make a stockholder list available during a meeting of stockholders;

• address matters relating to Rule 14a-19 (the “Universal Proxy Rule”) under the Exchange Act, including (i) requiring that any stockholder submitting a nomination notice make a representation as to whether such stockholder intends to solicit proxies in support of director nominees other than the Company’s nominees in accordance with the Universal Proxy Rule, and if so, agree in writing that such stockholder will comply with the requirements of the Universal Proxy Rule; (ii) providing the Company a remedy if a stockholder fails to satisfy the Universal Proxy Rule requirements; (iii) requiring that a stockholder inform the Company if such stockholder no longer plans to solicit proxies in accordance with the Universal Proxy Rule; and (iv) requiring stockholders intending to use the Universal Proxy Rule to provide reasonable evidence of the satisfaction of

73 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2023 Form 10-Q

the requirements under the Universal Proxy Rule at least five business days before the meeting upon request by the Company;

• revise and enhance the procedures and disclosure requirements set forth in the advance notice bylaw provisions for director nominations made and business proposals submitted by stockholders (other than proposals submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-8 under the Exchange Act), including (i) requiring additional information, representations, and disclosures regarding proposing stockholders, proposed nominees, proposed business, and other persons related to, and acting in concert with, a stockholder and the stockholder’s solicitation of proxies; (ii) clarifying that stockholders are not entitled to make additional or substitute nominations or proposals after the submission deadline and may only nominate a number of candidates to the Board of Directors that does not exceed the number of directors to be elected at such meeting; (iii) requiring that if requested by the Secretary of the Company, the Board of Directors or any committee of the Board of Directors, proposed nominees make themselves available for interviews by the Board of Directors and any committee of the Board of Directors within five business days following the date of such request; and (iv) clarifying the authority of the Secretary of the Company, the Board of Directors, or any committee of the Board of Directors to request additional information or written verification to demonstrate the accuracy of previously-provided information with respect to proposing stockholders, proposed nominees, and proposed business;

• require any stockholders directly or indirectly soliciting proxies from other stockholders to use a proxy card color other than white, with the white proxy card being reserved for exclusive use by the Board;

• provide that, unless the Company consents in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, (i) the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware (or, if the Court of Chancery does not have jurisdiction, the federal district court for the District of Delaware) will be the sole and exclusive forum for any (A) derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of the Company, (B) action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any current or former director, officer or other employee of the Company to the Company or the Company’s stockholders, (C) action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL, the Company’s certificate of incorporation or the By-Laws, or (D) action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine and (ii) the federal district courts of the United States of America will be the sole and exclusive forum for any action asserting a claim arising under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended;

• provide that the vote standard applicable to the proposal on the frequency of future advisory votes on executive compensation required by Section 14A(a)(2) of the Exchange Act (to determine whether the advisory vote on executive compensation will occur every one year, two years or three years) is a plurality of the votes cast by the Company’s stockholders; and

• incorporate certain administrative, modernizing, and conforming changes to provide clarification and consistency, including regarding meetings of the Board.

The foregoing description of the Amended and Restated By-Laws does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the Amended and Restated By-Laws, which is filed as Exhibit 3.1 to this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and incorporated herein by reference.

74 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2023 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.