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 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.