Item 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

The Company maintains disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports that the Company files or submits under the Exchange Act, is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC's rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures.

The Company, under the supervision and with the participation of its management, including the Company’s CEO and 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 concluded that, as of June 30, 2025, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective due to the material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting described below.

As previously reported in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, management identified that we did not design effective controls over the review of the disposition of AES Brasil, a complex non-routine transaction; specifically due to the use of incomplete data in the estimation of the fair value of the net assets of AES Brasil, which was used in calculation of the impairment expense after AES Brasil was classified as held-for-sale in Q2 2024.

Notwithstanding the identified material weakness, our CEO and CFO have concluded that our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly present, in all material respects, our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows for the periods presented and such financial statements are presented in conformity with GAAP.

Remediation Efforts and Status

As of the date of the filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, our management has taken significant measures towards remediation of this material weakness. While we have implemented the remediation measures described below, our conclusion on remediation will take place during our annual SOX testing which will conclude with the filing of our annual financial statements.

The remediation actions implemented to date include: (i) policy updates detailing steps to perform in an impairment analysis of complex ownership structures, (ii) detailed instructions on considerations to be included in the fair value estimations, (iii) updates to held-for-sale and discontinued operations policies, and (iv) training to impacted personnel.

Following a thorough review, Management determined that the revised controls have been designed effectively. However, the material weakness will not be considered fully remediated until the applicable controls operate for a sufficient period of time and management has concluded, through the testing mentioned above, that the controls are operating effectively. Management will continue to monitor the operating effectiveness of these and other processes, procedures and controls and make any further changes management deems appropriate.

Changes in Internal Controls over Financial Reporting

Other than the remediation efforts described above, 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.

87 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2025 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, 2025. 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

88 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2025 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 has since followed up with the City and awaits the next phase of the permitting process. 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.

On March 23, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana approved and entered a judicial consent decree among AES Indiana, the United States on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (“IDEM”). The decree resolved allegations by EPA and IDEM that AES Indiana had violated the federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”) at its Petersburg Station, which AES denies. Under the decree, AES Indiana agreed to certain emission limits and annual caps on NOx, SO2 and PM emissions at the four Units at the station; paid a civil penalty of $1.525 million; retired Units 1 and 2, spent $325,000 on an environmentally beneficial project to preserve local, ecologically-significant lands (notice of completion of which was provided May 8, 2025); and will spend a total of $5 million on a further environmental mitigation project to build and operate a new, non-emitting source of generation at the site.

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 AES companies have moved to dismiss the lawsuit. That motion is under consideration by the relevant court of first instance. The 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. Later in 2024, the claimants appealed the dismissal to the relevant intermediate appellate court, where proceedings are ongoing. 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. AES Andes has completed the Compliance Program and is planning to file its final report in Q3-2025. The SMA will review the final report. If the SMA approves the final report, the Compliance Program will be considered fully completed, and thus any alleged charges associated with the same will be considered permanently waived. Separately, an ex officio action was brought by the SMA due to

89 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2025 Form 10-Q

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 request 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 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. On June 3, 2024, the Company appealed this fine to the Environmental Court. The appellate hearing occurred on April 3, 2025; the Environmental Court’s decision on the appeal is pending. 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 be successful.

On May 12, 2021, the Mexican Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (the “Agency”) initiated an environmental audit at the Termoeléctrica Peñoles thermal generation facility (“TEP”). On January 20, 2023, TEP was notified of the resolution issued by the Agency, which alleges breaches of air emission regulations, including the failure to submit reports. The resolution imposes a fine of $27,615,140 pesos (approximately $1.5 million), as well as a series of corrective measures. On March 3, 2023, TEP filed a lawsuit in an administrative court—The Specialized Chamber of the Federal Administrative Justice Tribunal (“Chamber”)—challenging the legality of the Agency’s resolution and fine. On May 30, 2025, the Chamber issued a final administrative ruling denying TEP’s lawsuit. On July 1, 2025, TEP appealed to the Federal District Court. TEP’s appeal challenges the constitutionality of the Agency’s regulations (demanda de amparo) and requests a stay of enforcement of the Chamber’s final administrative ruling. The appeal has been duly admitted and the Federal District Court’s decision on the injunction request is pending. 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 claimants’ attempt to recuse the presiding judge has been rejected by the relevant Dominican appellate court. The parties have completed briefing on the Company’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. That motion is under consideration by the relevant court of first instance. 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 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 an initial compliance program to the SMA, which has undergone observations by the SMA and interested third parties and has been resubmitted by the project. On December 9, 2024 the SMA rejected the latest version of the Compliance Program. On December 16, 2024, Alto Maipo submitted a petition for reconsideration. If appeals are unsuccessful, the imposition of fines are possible.

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 has responded to all of the FNE’s information requests received to date. 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

90 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2025 Form 10-Q

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.

In April 2025, an alleged shareholder of Fluence Energy, Inc. (“Fluence”) filed a putative securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (“Court”) against Fluence and certain of Fluence’s officers and directors. The complaint in the case also named the Company and AES Grid Stability, LLC as defendants (together, the “AES Defendants”). In May 2025, the Court consolidated the lawsuit with another putative securities class action against Fluence and certain of its officers and directors. The Court also appointed a lead plaintiff (the “Plaintiff”) and lead plaintiffs’ counsel for the consolidated lawsuit. In June 2025, the Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint against Fluence, certain of its officers and directors (the “Individual Fluence Defendants” and, together with Fluence, the “Fluence Defendants”), and the AES Defendants. The Plaintiff seeks to pursue claims on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of Fluence Class A common stock between October 28, 2021 and February 10, 2025. The Plaintiff alleges that the Fluence Defendants made allegedly false or misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts claims against the Individual Fluence Defendants and the AES Defendants as alleged “control persons” under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In July 2025, the Fluence Defendants and the AES Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss the consolidated lawsuit. After further briefing and a hearing in September 2025 the Court will decide the motions. The AES Defendants believe that they have meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against them and will defend themselves vigorously in this lawsuit; however, there can be no assurances that they will be successful in their efforts.

In May 2025, a special session of the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region of Brazil ("TRF1”) issued a decision dismissing the claims of Sul, which was sold to a third party in 2016 (“Buyer”), to annul ANEEL’s Order 288. Order 288 was issued in May 2002 and retroactively changed the effects of the Wholesale Energy Market (“MAE”) for the year 2001. The aggregate impact of Order 288 for AES Sul was to reverse a gain on certain purchases and sales into an approximately R$75 million ($14 million) loss, estimated as of May 2002. The TRF1’s May 2025 decision reversed its April 2013 decision in Sul’s favor that annulled Order 288. Sul intends to challenge the May 2025 decision through clarification and/or appeal. In the event of an unsuccessful outcome for Sul, the Buyer may attempt to seek recovery of losses relating to the R$75 million ($14 million) loss above, an additional amount of approximately R$27 million ($5 million) that was collected by Sul in 2008 and may need to be reimbursed, plus interest on these amounts, from the AES seller and The AES Corporation under the sale agreement. In that event, AES would defend itself vigorously; however, there can be no assurances that it would be successful in its efforts.

On May 30, 2025, an arbitral tribunal (the “Tribunal”) of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) issued an arbitration award in the Company’s favor (“Award”) in connection with a treaty arbitration initiated by the Company against the Argentine Republic (“Argentina”) under the US-Argentina bilateral investment treaty (“BIT”). In the Award, the Tribunal found that certain measures taken by Argentina in relation to its power sector, beginning in late 2001, breached the BIT. The Tribunal ordered Argentina to pay to the Company approximately $733 million in damages, including an award of costs, as well as accrued interest. Argentina has 120 days from the issuance of the Award to seek annulment of the Award before a new panel of three arbitrators appointed by ICSID (“Annulment Panel”). If Argentina makes an annulment application it would likely result in a stay of execution of the Award pending constitution of the Annulment Panel, after which the Annulment Panel would rule on whether to continue such stay and, if so, on what terms. The Company can provide no assurance as to whether Argentina will make an annulment application, or how an Annulment Panel would rule on any request to stay execution of the Award or the merits of any annulment application. Relatedly, measures to enforce the Award through judicial means entail a process that is inherently unpredictable; as a result, the Company cannot provide any assurance as to the timing or success of such enforcement measures. The Company may attempt to settle this dispute with Argentina. However, the Company can provide no assurances regarding the likelihood, substance, or timing of any such settlement.