AES 10-Q 2024-09-30

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

For the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2024

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 October 29, 2024 was 711,027,043.

The AES Corporation

Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended September 30, 2024

Table of Contents

1 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2024 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, 2024 Form 10-Q

3 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2024 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 232K 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 2023 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 2023 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, and hydro), 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. For additional information regarding our business, see Item 1.—Business of our 2023 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, third quarter net income decreased $81 million, from $291 million to $210 million. This decrease is the result of lower impairments and lower unrealized foreign currency losses in the current year, and higher contributions from renewables projects placed in service; partially offset by lower contributions from the Energy Infrastructure SBU.

Adjusted EBITDA, a non-GAAP measure, decreased $298 million, from $990 million to $692 million, driven by lower margins at the Energy Infrastructure SBU primarily due to the end of commercial operations at Warrior Run and prior year margin at the hedged merchant Southland facilities that are contracted primarily for capacity in the current year, and record-breaking drought conditions in South America at the Renewables SBU. This was partially offset by higher revenues from new projects at the Renewables SBU.

Adjusted EBITDA with Tax Attributes, a non-GAAP measure, increased $160 million, from $1,008 million to $1,168 million primarily due to higher realized tax attributes driven by more renewables projects placed in service, partially offset by the drivers above.

38 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2024 Form 10-Q

Compared with last year, third quarter diluted earnings per share from continuing operations increased $0.40, from $0.32 to $0.72. This increase is mainly driven by higher contributions from renewables projects placed in service in the current year, lower long-lived asset impairments in the current year, and prior year unrealized foreign currency losses at the Energy Infrastructure SBU. This was partially offset by lower earnings at the Energy Infrastructure SBU due to end of commercial operations at Warrior Run.

Adjusted EPS, a non-GAAP measure, increased $0.11 from $0.60 to $0.71, mainly driven by a lower adjusted tax rate and higher contributions from renewables projects placed in service in the current year, partially offset by lower contributions from the Energy Infrastructure SBU.

Compared with last year, net income for the nine months ended September 30, 2024 decreased $12 million, from $461 million to $449 million. This decrease is the result of higher interest expense and losses at commencement of sales-type leases at the Renewables SBU; partially offset by favorable contributions at the Utilities and New Energy Technologies SBUs, lower unrealized foreign currency losses in the current year, and higher contributions from renewables projects placed in service in the current year.

Adjusted EBITDA, a non-GAAP measure, decreased $208 million, from $2,187 million to $1,979 million, mainly driven by lower margins at the Energy Infrastructure SBU due to prior year margin at the hedged merchant Southland facilities that are contracted primarily for capacity in the current year and higher outages, and record-breaking drought conditions and outages in Colombia at the Renewables SBU; partially offset by higher contributions at the Utilities SBU, higher revenues from new projects at the Renewables SBU, and lower losses from affiliates at the New Energy Technologies SBU.

Adjusted EBITDA with Tax Attributes, a non-GAAP measure, increased $618 million, from $2,256 million to $2,874 million, primarily due to higher realized tax attributes driven by more renewables projects placed in service, partially offset by the drivers above.

Compared with last year, diluted earnings per share from continuing operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2024 increased $1.10, from $0.48 to $1.58. This increase is mainly driven by higher contributions from renewables projects placed in service in the current year, prior year unrealized foreign currency losses at the Energy Infrastructure SBU, lower long-lived asset impairments in the current year, and lower income tax expense. This was partially offset by lower margins due to outages, the end of commercial operations at Warrior Run, higher interest expense, and losses at commencement of sales-type leases at the Renewables SBU.

Adjusted EPS, a non-GAAP measure, increased $0.57 from $1.03 to $1.60, mainly driven by a lower adjusted tax rate, higher contributions from renewables projects placed in service in the current year, and higher contributions from the Utilities SBU; pa

Showing the first 8K of 165K characters. Open the full section

Overview Regarding Market Risks

Our businesses are exposed to, and proactively manage, market risk. Market risk is the potential loss that may

72 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2024 Form 10-Q

result from market changes associated with AES power generation or with existing or forecasted financial or commodity transactions. Our primary market risk exposure is to the price of commodities, particularly electricity, natural gas, coal, and environmental credits. AES is also exposed to fluctuations in interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates associated primarily with outstanding and expected future issuances and borrowing, and from investments in foreign subsidiaries and affiliates. We enter into various transactions, including derivatives, in order to hedge our exposure to these market risks.

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 2023 Form 10-K.

Commodity Price Risk

Although we prefer to hedge our exposure to the impact of market fluctuations in the price of commodities, 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. In addition, our businesses are exposed to lower electricity prices due to increased competition, including from renewable sources such as wind and solar, because of lower costs of entry and lower variable costs. We employ risk management strategies to hedge our financial performance against these effects. The implementation of these strategies can involve the use of physical and financial commodity contracts, futures, swaps, and options. 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. 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.

As of September 30, 2024, we project pre-tax earnings exposure on a 10% increase in commodity prices to be less than a $10 million gain for power, less than a $5 million loss for gas, and less than a $5 million gain for coal. The sensitivities are calculated using industry-standard valuation techniques to revalue all transactions (physical and financial commodity transactions) in the portfolio for a change in the underlying prices the transactions are exposed to and exclude correlation effects, including those due to renewable resource availability. The models reference market prices of commodities across future periods and associated volatility of these market prices. Prices and volatilities are predominantly based on observable market 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.

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. In California, our Southland once-through cooling generation units (“Legacy Assets”) in Long Beach and Huntington Beach have been extended to operate through 2026 under capacity contracts with the State as part of the Strategic Reserve program. Our facility in Redondo Beach has been retired effective January 1, 2024. Our ability to operate the Long Beach facility at full capacity through 2025 was approved under Tentative Time Schedule Order coverage in November 2023. Approval to operate Long Beach at full capacity in 2026 will be subject to review with State Agencies. Our Southland combined cycle gas turbine (Southland Energy) units benefit from higher power and lower gas prices, depending on the contracted or hedge position. 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 through 2024 include mechanisms of indexation that adjust the price of energy based on fluctuations in the price of coal, with an index defined by the National Energy Commission based on the physical coal imports for the energy system. This mechanism mitigates exposures to changes in the price of fuel. The increasing share of renewable energy in Chile's power market may reduce reliance on thermal units and impact power price volatility, which could impact our cost to serve certain unregulated PPAs. In the Dominican Republic, we own natural gas plants contracted under a portfolio

73 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2024 Form 10-Q

of contract sales, and both contract and spot prices may move with commodity prices through 2024. Our thermal asset in Panama has PPAs with distribution companies that match the term of the LNG supply agreement of such thermal assets. New entrants into the Panama thermal generation market could impact the dispatch of existing generation, requiring purchases in the spot market to satisfy the PPA obligations. Contract levels do not always match our generation availability or needs, 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, which could impact existing fuel supply commitments. 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 and benefit from higher power prices, where generation exceeds contracted levels. 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 majority of the hydroelectric and other renewable generating facility volumes 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

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.

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. These subsidiaries and affiliates attempt 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 Argentine peso that could be material. Additionally, as of September 30, 2024, assuming a 10% USD appreciation, cash distributions attributable to foreign subsidiaries may be exposed to exchange rate movement of less than a $5 million gain from Euro and less than a $5 million gain from the Colombian peso.

These numbers have been produced by applying a one-time 10% USD appreciation to forecasted exposed cash distributions for 2024 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 inconvertibility.

Interest Rate Risks

74 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2024 Form 10-Q

We are exposed to risk resulting from changes in interest rates primarily because of our current and expected future issuance of debt and borrowing.

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, 2024, 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 less than $5 million on interest expense for the debt denominated in these currencies. These amounts represent the exposure for the remainder of 2024 and 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, 2024, 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.

75 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2024 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, 2024. 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 $11 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 (“LCP”). 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 an NOV directing AES to discontinue any operation of the water pumps in the alleged

76 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2024 Form 10-Q

wetlands and to submit a Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) application for the removal of the water pumps within the alleged wetlands. The NOV also directed AES to submit technical analysis regarding additional water pumps located within onsite electrical vaults and, if necessary, a CDP application for their continued operation. With respect to the vault pumps, AES provided the CCC, with the requested analysis, and the CCC has not required further action. With respect to the pumps in the alleged wetlands, AES locked out those pumps to prevent further operation and 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. On October 14, 2020, the City deemed the CDP application to be complete and indicated a public hearing will be required. AES submitted all required information and waited for the City to continue processing the application. In December 2023, the City indicated it would continue processing the CDP application. AES will vigorously defend its interests with regard to the NOV, but we cannot predict the outcome of the matter at this time. However, settlements and litigated outcomes of Coastal Act and LCP claims alleged against other companies have required them to pay significant civil penalties and undertake remedial measures.

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. Subsequently, the claimants withdrew the lawsuit with respect to AES Puerto Rico. The lawsuit remains pending against the other AES defendants (“AES Defendants”) and the unaffiliated defendants. 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, namely, the Civil Court of La Vega (“CFI”). In May 2024, the CFI dismissed the entire case due to the expiry of the statute of limitations. The claimants may seek to appeal. Recently, the claimants appealed the dismissal to the relevant intermediate appellate court. To date, the AES Defendants have not been formally served with the appeal. The AES Defendants 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

77 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2024 Form 10-Q

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 the proposed Compliance Program is approximately $10.8 million USD and is in the execution stage. Fines are possible if the SMA determines there is an unsatisfactory execution of the Compliance Program. 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. On May 10, 2024, the Company was notified of a fine for $180,515 USD. On June 3, 2024, the Company appealed this fine to the Environmental Court. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and will continue to assert them vigorously in this dispute; however, there can be no assurances that it will successful.

In March 2020, Mexico’s Comisión Federal de Electricidad (“CFE”) served an arbitration demand upon AES Mérida III. CFE alleged that AES Mérida was in breach of a power and capacity purchase agreement (“Contract”) between the two parties, even though the allegations relate to CFE’s own failure to provide fuel within the specifications of the Contract. CFE sought 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 filed an answer denying liability to CFE and asserted a counterclaim for damages due to CFE’s breach of its obligations. The evidentiary hearing took place in November 2021. Closing arguments were heard in May 2022. In November 2022, the arbitration Tribunal issued its 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. The enforcement proceeding initiated by AES Mérida is still pending before the relevant court of first instance. In contrast, in March 2024, the relevant court of first instance denied CFE’s request to nullify the Award (“March 2024 Decision”). The March 2024 Decision was affirmed by the relevant federal District Court and is currently under review by the Collegiate Circuit Court. AES Mérida believes that it has meritorious claims and defenses 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 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 $1.5 million). On March 3, 2023, the facility filed a nullity judgment to challenge such resolution, which has been admitted by the local judge with an injunction granted against execution of the proposed fine during the course of the underlying proceedings. However, the local tax authority rejected receiving the bond that is required to guarantee the injunction, and as a result, on September 18, 2023, TEP filed a complaint seeking to compel the tax authority to accept the bond and recognize the validity of the injunction. The Specialized Chamber has not issued a response to the complaint, and therefore on January 12, 2024, TEP filed a request for the Specialized Chamber to rule on the admission of the complaint. On February 2, 2024, TEP filed an amparo lawsuit on the basis that no resolution has been issued regarding TEP's May 2023 filing with the Chamber to inform if the Authority had submitted its response to the nullity lawsuit, and if not, to declare that the Authority's right precluded. 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. In February 2024, at the request of the Company, the Dominican Supreme Court of Justice transferred the case to a different civil court, namely, the Civil Court of La Vega. 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 alleged 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.

78 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2024 Form 10-Q

The NOV further alleged AES-PR did not comply fully with the facility’s Title V operating permit. In August 2024, AES-PR and the EPA entered into a Consent Agreement and Final Order (“CAFO”) settling this matter. Pursuant to the CAFO, AES-PR paid a $3.125 million fine to the agency and agreed to implement certain additional compliance and reporting measures.

On January 26, 2023, the SMA notified Alto Maipo SpA of four alleged charges relating to the Alto Maipo facility, all of which are categorized by the SMA as “serious.” The alleged charges include untimely completion of 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 the SMA which has undergone two rounds of observations by the SMA and interested third parties. On June 19, 2024, the SMA issued new observations. In response, on July 17, 2024, Alto Maipo submitted an updated version of the compliance program, which is currently under review by the Environmental Authority. The costs associated with the compliance program are estimated to amount to CLP $3,111,437 (approximately $3 million USD). If the compliance program is not approved, Alto Maipo reserves the right to appeal such a decision before the environmental courts. If such an appeal is unsuccessful - or if the compliance program is not executed to the satisfaction of the SMA - fines, revocation of the facility’s RCA environmental permit, or facility closure are possible outcomes for such alleged serious violations under applicable regulations.

In May 2024, the Chilean competition agency (the Fiscalía Nacional Económica or “FNE”) opened an investigation regarding AES Andes’s declarations with respect to coal prices and coal blends used to generate electricity in Chile. The investigation was prompted by a confidential complaint filed in December 2023, which has not been disclosed to AES Andes. In general terms, the investigation seeks to determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint could be considered as an abuse of a dominant position by AES Andes. The investigation is at a very early stage; AES Andes is currently responding to the FNE’s information requests. The FNE will independently conduct the investigation and will ultimately decide whether to dismiss the matter or initiate a judicial proceeding on the allegations in the confidential complaint. These types of investigations in Chile commonly last for years. AES Andes does not believe that it has violated any competition laws. Further, if the FNE ever initiates a judicial proceeding on this matter, AES Andes will defend itself vigorously. Given the early nature of this investigation, we are unable to estimate any potential impact of the investigation or its eventual outcome on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

There have been no material changes to the risk factors disclosed in Item 1A.—Risk Factors of our 2023 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 3. DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES

None.

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.

79 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2024 Form 10-Q

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

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

The following table provides information relating to our purchases of AES Common Stock during the third quarter of fiscal year 2024:

(1) On July 7, 2010, The AES Corporation announced that its Board of Directors approved a common stock repurchase program under which the Company may purchase up to $500 million of shares of its outstanding common stock, depending on cash availability, market conditions, and other factors. The original authorization was set to expire on December 31, 2010, however, in December 2010, the Board authorized an extension of the stock repurchase program. The current program does not have a predetermined expiration date. Repurchases under this program may be made using a variety of methods, which may include open market repurchases, purchases by contract (including, without limitation, accelerated stock repurchase programs or 10b5-1 plans), and/or privately negotiated transactions. No repurchases were made under this program during the third quarter of 2024. As of September 30, 2024, $264 million remained available for purchase under this authorization.

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 September 30, 2024.

80 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2024 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.