Item 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

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.