The Company will record liabilities when an environmental assessment indicates that remedial actions are probable and that costs can be reasonably estimated. As of December 31, 2010, the Company has recognized liabilities of $21 million for estimated environmental remediation costs and potential fines and penalties. These are reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheet within “accrued and other liabilities” and “other long-term liabilities.” Due to the uncertainties associated with environmental assessment and remediation activities, actual future costs of compliance or remediation could be higher or lower than the amount currently accrued. Certain expenditures may also be capitalized in accordance with the Company's property, plant and equipment policies and are excluded from environmental liabilities in accordance with accounting guidelines. Any capital expenditures incurred of this nature would be incremental to amounts reserved.

The Company is subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations in the jurisdictions in which it operates. The Company expenses environmental regulation compliance costs as incurred unless the underlying expenditure qualifies for capitalization under its property, plant and equipment policies. The Company faces certain risks and uncertainties related to these environmental laws and regulations, including existing and potential greenhouse gas (“GHG”) legislation or regulations, and actual or potential laws and regulations pertaining to water discharges, waste management (including disposal of coal combustion byproducts), and certain air emissions, such as SO2, NOX, particulate matter and mercury. Such risks and uncertainties could result in increased capital expenditures or other compliance costs which could have a material adverse effect on certain of our United States or international subsidiaries, and our consolidated results of operations. For further information about environmental risks, see Item 1A.—Risk Factors of the 2010 Form 10-K, “Our businesses are subject to stringent environmental laws and regulations,” “Our businesses are subject to enforcement initiatives from environmental regulatory agencies,” and “Regulators, politicians, non-governmental organizations and other private parties have expressed concern about greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions and the potential risks associated with climate change and are taking actions which could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.”

Currently in the United States there is no Federal legislation establishing mandatory GHG emissions reduction programs (including CO2) affecting the electric power generation facilities of the Company's subsidiaries. There are numerous state programs regulating GHG emissions from electric power generation facilities and there is a possibility that federal GHG legislation will be enacted within the next several years. Further, the EPA has adopted regulations pertaining to GHG emissions and has announced its intention to propose new regulations for electric generating units under Section 111 of the United States Clean Air Act (“CAA”).

Potential United States Federal GHG Legislation. Federal legislation passed the United States House of Representatives in 2009 that, if adopted, would impose a nationwide cap-and-trade program to reduce GHG emissions. In the United States Senate, several different draft bills pertaining to GHG legislation have been considered at various times since then, including comprehensive GHG legislation similar to the legislation that passed the United States House of Representatives and more limited legislation focusing only on the utility and electric generation industry. It is uncertain whether any such legislation or any new legislation pertaining to GHG emissions will be voted on or passed by the Senate. If any legislation is passed by the Senate, it is uncertain whether such legislation will be reconciled with the House of Representatives' legislation and ultimately enacted into law. However, if any such legislation is enacted, the impact could be material to the Company.

EPA GHG Regulation. The EPA promulgated regulations governing GHG emissions from automobiles under the CAA. The effect of the EPA's regulation of GHG emissions from mobile sources is that certain provisions of the CAA will also apply to GHG emissions from existing stationary sources, including many United States power plants. Beginning on January 2, 2011, construction of new stationary sources and modifications to existing stationary sources that result in increased GHG emissions, became subject to permitting requirements under the prevention of significant deterioration ("PSD") program of the CAA. The PSD program, as currently applicable to GHG emissions, requires sources that emit above a certain threshold of GHGs to obtain PSD permits prior to commencement of new construction or modifications to existing facilities. In addition, major sources of GHG emissions may be required to amend, or obtain new, Title V-air permits under the CAA to reflect any new applicable GHG emissions requirements for new construction or for modifications to existing facilities.

The EPA promulgated a final rule on June 3, 2010, (the "Tailoring Rule") that sets thresholds for GHG emissions that would trigger PSD permitting requirements. The Tailoring Rule, which became effective in January of 2011, provides that sources already subject to PSD permitting requirements need to install Best Available Control Technology (“BACT”) for greenhouse gases if a proposed modification would result in the increase of more than 75,000 tons per year of GHG emissions. Also, under the Tailoring Rule, commencing in July of 2011, any new sources of GHG emissions that would emit over 100,000 tons per year of GHG emissions, in addition to any modification that would result in GHG emissions exceeding 75,000 tons per year would require PSD review and be subject to related permitting requirements. The EPA anticipates that it will adjust downward the permitting thresholds of 100,000 tons and 75,000 tons for new sources and modifications, respectively, in future rulemaking actions. The Tailoring Rule substantially reduces the number of sources subject to PSD requirements for GHG emissions and the number of sources required to obtain Title V air permits, although new thermal power plants may still be subject to PSD and Title V requirements because annual GHG emissions from such plants typically far exceed the 100,000 ton threshold noted above. The 75,000 ton threshold for increased GHG emissions from modifications to existing sources may reduce the likelihood that future modifications to plants owned by some of our United States subsidiaries would trigger PSD requirements, although some projects that would expand capacity or electric output are likely to exceed this threshold, and in any such cases the capital expenditures necessary to comply with the PSD requirements could be significant.

In December 2010, the EPA entered into a settlement agreement with several states and environmental groups to resolve a petition for review challenging EPA's new source performance standards (“NSPS”) rulemaking for electric utility steam generating units (“EUSGUs”) based on the NSPS' failure to address GHG emissions. Under the settlement agreement, the EPA has committed to propose GHG emissions standards for EUSGUs by July 26, 2011 and to finalize GHG emissions standards for EUSGUs by May 26, 2012. The NSPS will establish GHG emission standards for newly constructed and reconstructed EUSGUs. The NSPS also will establish guidelines regarding the best system for achieving further GHG emissions reductions from EUSGUs and, based on such guidelines, individual states will be required to submit a plan to the EPA to establish GHG emission standards for existing EUSGUs within their state. It is impossible to estimate the impact and compliance cost associated with any future NSPS applicable to EUSGUs until such regulations are finalized. However, the compliance costs could have a material and adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The primary regulation of GHG emissions affecting the United States plants of the Company's subsidiaries has been through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (“RGGI”). Under RGGI, ten Northeastern States have coordinated to establish rules that require reductions in CO2 emissions from power plant operations within those states through a cap-and-trade program. States participating in RGGI in which our subsidiaries have generating facilities include Connecticut, Maryland, New York and New Jersey. Under RGGI, power plants must acquire one carbon allowance through auction or in the emission trading markets for each ton of CO2 emitted.

In July 2003, the European Community “Directive 2003/87/EC on Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance Trading” was created, which requires member states to limit emissions of CO2 from large industrial sources within their countries. To do so, member states are required to implement EC-approved national allocation plans (“NAPs”). Under the NAPs, member states are responsible for allocating limited CO2 allowances within their borders. Directive 2003/87/EC does not dictate how these allocations are to be made, and NAPs that have been submitted thus far have varied in their allocation methodologies. For these and other reasons, uncertainty remains with respect to the implementation of the European Union Emissions Trading System (“EU ETS”) that commenced in January 2005. The European Union has announced that it intends to keep the EU ETS in place after 2012, even if the Kyoto Protocol is not extended or replaced by another agreement. The Company's subsidiaries operate eight electric power generation facilities, and another subsidiary has one under construction, within six member states which have adopted NAPs to implement Directive 2003/87/EC. At this time, the Company cannot determine fully whether achieving and maintaining compliance with the NAPs, to which its subsidiaries are subject, will have a material impact on its consolidated operations or results. The risk and benefit associated with achieving compliance with applicable NAPs at several facilities of the Company's subsidiaries are not the responsibility of the Company's subsidiaries, as they are subject to contractual provisions that transfer the costs associated with compliance to contract counterparties. However, one such contract counterparty, GDF-Suez, is currently disputing these provisions with AES Energia Cartagena S.R.L. The matter has been submitted to arbitration and the parties are currently awaiting a decision. See Item 3.—Legal Proceedings in the 2010 Form 10-K for more detail regarding this dispute. In connection with this dispute or any similar dispute that might arise with other contract counterparties, there can be no assurance that the Company and/or the relevant subsidiary would prevail, or that the failure to prevail in any such dispute will not have a material adverse effect on the Company and its financial condition or consolidated results of operations.

On February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol became effective. The Kyoto Protocol requires the industrialized countries that have ratified it to significantly reduce their GHG emissions, including CO2. The vast majority of developing countries which have ratified the Kyoto Protocol have no GHG reduction requirements, including many of the countries in which the Company's subsidiaries operate. Of the 28 countries in which the Company's subsidiaries currently operate all but one—the United States (including Puerto Rico)—have ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

In addition to the risks and uncertainties related to GHG regulations or potential legislation, the Company faces certain risks and uncertainties related to regulations or legislation concerning other types of air emissions. In the United States the CAA and various state laws and regulations regulate emissions of air pollutants, including SO2, NOX, particulate matter (“PM”), mercury and other hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”). The applicable rules and steps taken by the Company to comply with the rules are discussed in further detail below.

The EPA promulgated the “Clean Air Interstate Rule” (“CAIR”) on March 10, 2005, which required allowance surrender for SO2 and NOX, emissions from existing power plants located in 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia. CAIR was subsequently challenged in federal court on July 11, 2008 and the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion striking down much of CAIR and remanding it to the EPA.

In response to the D.C. Circuit's opinion, on July 6, 2010, the EPA issued a new proposed rule (the “Transport Rule”) to replace CAIR. The final Transport Rule is scheduled to be issued by July 2011. The Clean Air Transport Rule would require significant reductions in SO2 and NOX emissions in 31 states and the District of Columbia starting in 2012, including several states where subsidiaries of the Company conduct business.

The Transport Rule contemplates three possible options for reducing SO2 and NOX emissions in the designated states. The EPA's preferred option contemplates a set limit or budget on SO2 and NOX emissions for each of the states, with limited interstate trading of emissions allowances and unlimited intrastate trading of SO2 and NOX emissions allowances. Affected power plants would receive emissions allowances based on the applicable state emissions budgets. The EPA's second option under the Transport Rule would establish emission budgets for each state but only allow intrastate trading of emissions allowances. The final option would set emission rate limitations for each power plant but would allow for some intrastate averaging of emission rates. Under any of the proposed options, additional air emission control technology may be required by some of our subsidiaries, and the cost of implementing any such technology could affect the financial condition or results of operations of these subsidiaries or the Parent Company. The EPA has received public comments on the Transport Rule, and such public comments will be considered by the EPA prior to promulgating a final rule.

As a result of prior EPA determinations and a D.C. Circuit Court ruling, the EPA is obligated under Section 112 of the CAA to develop a rule requiring pollution controls for hazardous air pollutants, including mercury, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and nickel species from coal and oil-fired power plants. The EPA has entered into a consent decree under which it is obligated to propose the rule by March 2011 and to finalize the rule by November 2011. In connection with such rule, the CAA requires the EPA to establish maximum achievable control technology (“MACT”) standards for each pollutant regulated under the rule. MACT is defined as the emission limitation achieved by the “best performing 12%” of sources in the source category. While it is impossible to project what emission rate levels the EPA may propose as MACT, the rule may require all coal-fired power plants to install acid gas scrubbers (wet or dry flue gas desulfurization technology) and/or some other type of mercury control technology, such as sorbent injection. Most of the Company's United States coal-fired plants have acid gas scrubbers or comparable control technologies, but it is possible that EPA regulations will require improvements to such control technologies at some of our plants. Under the CAA, compliance is required within three years of the effective date of the rule; however, the compliance period for a unit, or group of units, may be extended by state permitting authorities (for one additional year) or through a determination by the President (for up to two additional years). At this time, the Company cannot predict whether new regulations for hazardous air pollutants will be promulgated or, if promulgated, the extent of such regulations, but the cost of compliance with any such regulations could be material.

In July 1999, the EPA published the “Regional Haze Rule” to reduce haze and protect visibility in designated federal areas. On June 15, 2005, the EPA proposed amendments to the Regional Haze Rule that, among other things, set guidelines for determining when to require the installation of “best available retrofit technology” (“BART”) at older plants. The amendment to the Regional Haze Rule required states to consider the visibility impacts of the haze produced by an individual facility, in addition to other factors, when determining whether that facility must install potentially costly emissions controls. States were required to submit their regional haze state implementation plans (“SIPs”) to the EPA by December 2007, but only 13 states met this deadline. The EPA has yet to approve any state's Regional Haze state implementation plan. The statute requires compliance within five years after the EPA approves the relevant SIP, although individual states may impose more stringent compliance schedules.

In Europe, the Company is, and will continue to be, required to reduce air emissions from our facilities to comply with applicable EC Directives, including Directive 2001/80/EC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (the “LCPD”), which sets emission limit values for NOX, SO2, and particulate matter for large-scale industrial combustion plants for all member states. Until June 2004, existing coal plants could “opt-in” or “opt-out” of the LCPD emissions standards. Those plants that opted out will be required to cease all operations by 2015 and may not operate for more than 20,000 hours after 2008. Those that opted-in, like the Company's AES Kilroot facility in the United Kingdom, must invest in abatement technology to achieve specific SO2 reductions. Kilroot installed a new flue gas desulphurization system in the second quarter of 2009 in order to satisfy SO2 reduction requirements. The Company's other coal plants in Europe are either exempt from the Directive due to their size or have opted-in but will not require any additional abatement technology to comply with the LCPD.

On January 18, 2011, the President of Chile approved a new air emissions regulation submitted to him by the national environmental regulatory agency (“CONAMA”). The new regulation establishes limits on emissions of NOX, SO2, metals and particulate matter for both existing and new thermal power plants, with more stringent limitations on new facilities. The regulation will become effective upon approval of the General Comptroller of Chile. The regulation will require AES Gener, our Chilean subsidiary, to install emissions reduction equipment at its existing thermal plants from late 2011 through 2015. The exact costs of compliance with such regulation have not yet been determined and the Company believes some of the compliance costs are contractually passed through to counterparties. However, the compliance costs could be material.

The Company also faces certain risks and uncertainties related to environmental laws and regulations pertaining to water discharge. The Company's facilities are subject to a variety of rules governing water discharges. In particular, the Company is subject to the United States Clean Water Act Section 316(b) rule regarding existing power plant cooling water intake structures issued by the EPA in 2005 (69 Fed. Reg. 41579, July 9, 2004), and the subsequent Circuit Court of Appeals decision and Supreme Court decision regarding this rule. The rule as originally issued could affect 12 of the Company's United States power plants and the rule's requirements would be implemented via each plant's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) water quality permit renewal process. These permits are usually processed by state water quality agencies. To protect fish and other aquatic organisms, the 2004 rule requires existing steam electric generating facilities to utilize the best technology available for cooling water intake structures. To comply, a steam electric generating facility must first prepare a Comprehensive Demonstration Study to assess the facility's effect on the local aquatic environment. Since each facility's design, location, existing control equipment and results of impact assessments must be taken into consideration, costs will likely vary. The timing of capital expenditures to achieve compliance with this rule will vary from site to site. On January 25, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision (Docket Nos. 04-6692 to 04-6699) vacated and remanded major parts of the 2004 rule back to the EPA. In November 2007, three industry petitioners sought review of the Second Circuit's decision by the United States Supreme Court, and this review was granted by the United States Supreme Court in April 2008. In its April 2009 decision, the United States Supreme Court granted the EPA authority to use a cost-benefit analysis when setting technology-based requirements under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, and expressed no view on the remaining bases for the Second Circuit's remand. New draft rule 316(b) regulations are expected to be proposed by the EPA by March 14, 2011, and finalized by July 27, 2010. Until such regulations are final, the EPA has instructed state regulatory agencies to use their best professional judgment in determining how to evaluate what constitutes best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts from cooling water intake structures. Certain states in which the Company operates power generation facilities, such as New York, have been delegated authority and are moving forward with best technology available determinations in the absence of any final rule from the EPA. On September 27, 2010, the California Office of Administrative Law approved a policy adopted by the California Water Resources Control Board with respect to power plant cooling water intake structures. This policy became effective on October 1, 2010 and establishes technology-based standards to implement Section 316(b) of the United States Clean Water Act. At this time, it is contemplated that the Company's Redondo Beach, Huntington Beach and Alamitos power plants in California will need to have in place “best technology available” by December 31, 2020, or repower the facilities. At present, the Company cannot predict the final requirements under Section 316(b) or whether compliance with the anticipated new 316(b) rule will have a material impact on our operations or results, but the Company expects that capital investments and/or modifications resulting from such requirements could be significant.

The Company also faces certain risks and uncertainties related to environmental laws and regulations pertaining to waste management. In the course of operations, the Company's facilities generate solid and liquid waste materials requiring eventual disposal or processing. With the exception of coal combustion byproducts (“CCB”), the wastes are not usually physically disposed of on our property, but are shipped off site for final disposal, treatment or recycling. CCB, which consists of bottom ash, fly ash and air pollution control wastes, is disposed of at some of our coal-fired power generation plant sites using engineered, permitted landfills. Waste materials generated at our electric power and distribution facilities include CCB, oil, scrap metal, rubbish, small quantities of industrial hazardous wastes such as spent solvents, tree and land clearing wastes and polychlorinated biphenyl contaminated liquids and solids. The Company endeavors to ensure that all of its solid and liquid wastes are disposed of in accordance with applicable national, regional, state and local regulations. On December 22, 2009, a dike at a coal ash containment area at the Tennessee Valley Authority's plant in Kingston, Tennessee failed, and over 1 billion gallons of ash was released into adjacent waterways and properties. Following such incident, there has been heightened focus on the regulation of CCBs. On June 21, 2010, the EPA published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to regulate CCB under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). The proposed rule provides two possible options for CCB regulation, both options contemplate heightened structural integrity requirements for surface impoundments of CCB.

The first option contemplates regulation of CCB as a hazardous waste subject to regulation under Subtitle C of the RCRA. Under this option, existing surface impoundments containing CCB would be required to be retrofitted with composite liners and these impoundments would likely be phased out over several years. State and/or federal permit programs would be developed for storage, transport and disposal of CCB. States could bring enforcement actions for non-compliance with permitting requirements, and the EPA would have oversight responsibilities as well as the authority to bring lawsuits for non-compliance.

The second option contemplates regulation of CCB under Subtitle D of the RCRA. Under this option, the EPA would create national criteria applicable to CCB landfills and surface impoundments. Existing impoundments would also be required to be retrofitted with composite liners and would likely be phased out over several years. This option would not contain federal or state permitting requirements. The primary enforcement mechanism under regulation pursuant to Subtitle D would be private lawsuits.

The public comment period for this proposed regulation has expired, and the EPA is required to consider the public comments prior to promulgating a final rule. Requirements under a final rule are expected to become effective by January 2012, with a compliance schedule of five years. While the exact impact and compliance cost associated with future regulations of CCB cannot be established until such regulations are finalized, there can be no assurance that the Company's businesses, financial condition or results of operations would not be materially and adversely affected by such regulations.

In connection with certain project financing, acquisition, power purchase and other agreements, AES has expressly undertaken limited obligations and commitments, most of which will only be effective or will be terminated upon the occurrence of future events. In the normal course of business, AES has entered into various agreements, mainly guarantees and letters of credit, to provide financial or performance assurance to third parties on behalf of AES businesses. These agreements are entered into primarily to support or enhance the creditworthiness otherwise achieved by a business on a stand-alone basis, thereby facilitating the availability of sufficient credit to accomplish their intended business purposes. Most of the contingent obligations primarily relate to future performance commitments which the Company or its businesses expect to fulfill within the normal course of business. The expiration dates of these guarantees vary from less than one year to more than 16 years. In addition to the contingent obligations of the Parent Company identified in the table below, the Company's subsidiaries had letters of credit outstanding to support various contingent obligations.

The following table summarizes the Parent Company's contingent contractual obligations as of December 31, 2010. Amounts presented in the table below represent the Parent Company's current undiscounted exposure to guarantees and the range of maximum undiscounted potential exposure. The maximum exposure is not reduced by the amounts, if any, that could be recovered under the recourse or collateralization provisions in the guarantees. The amounts include obligations made by the Parent Company for the direct benefit of the lenders associated with the non-recourse debt of businesses of $101 million.

Contingent contractual obligations	Amount		Number of Agreements	Maximum Exposure Range for Each Agreement
	(in millions)			(in millions)
Guarantees	$	415	24	<$1 - $62
Letters of credit under the senior secured credit facility		85	30	<$1 - $26
Total	$	500	54

The risks associated with these obligations include change of control, construction cost overruns, political risk, tax indemnities, spot market power prices, sponsor support and liquidated damages under power purchase agreements and other agreements for projects in development, under construction and operating. While the Company does not expect to be required to fund any material amounts under these contingent contractual obligations during 2011 or beyond that are not recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheet, many of the events which would give rise to such an obligation are beyond the Parent Company's control. There can be no assurance that the Parent Company would have adequate sources of liquidity to fund its obligations under these contingent contractual obligations if it were required to make substantial payments thereunder.

During 2010, the Company paid letter of credit fees ranging from 3.19% to 3.75% per annum on the outstanding amounts of letters of credit.

The Company is involved in certain claims, suits and legal proceedings in the normal course of business, some of which are described below. The Company has accrued for litigation and claims where it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company has evaluated claims in accordance with the accounting guidance for contingencies that it deems both probable and reasonably estimable and accordingly, has recorded aggregate reserves for all claims for approximately $448 million and $480 million as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. These are reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheet within “accrued and other liabilities” and “other long-term liabilities.” A significant portion of these reserves relate to employment, non-income tax and customer disputes in international jurisdictions, principally Brazil. Certain of the Company's subsidiaries, principally in Brazil, are defendants in a number of labor and employment lawsuits. The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or other relief. The subsidiaries have denied any liability and intend to vigorously defend themselves in all of these proceedings. There can be no assurance that this reserve will be adequate to cover all existing and future claims or that we will have the liquidity to pay such claims as they arise.

The Company believes, based upon information it currently possesses and taking into account established reserves for liabilities and its insurance coverage, that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings and actions is unlikely to have a material effect on the Company's financial statements. However, even where no reserve has been recognized, it is reasonably possible 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.

In 1989, Centrais Elétricas Brasileiras S.A. (“Eletrobrás”) filed suit in the Fifth District Court in the State of Rio de Janeiro against Eletropaulo Eletricidade de São Paulo S.A. (“EEDSP”) relating to the methodology for calculating monetary adjustments under the parties' financing agreement. In April 1999, the Fifth District Court found for Eletrobrás and in September 2001, Eletrobrás initiated an execution suit in the Fifth District Court to collect approximately R$1.10 billion ($659 million) from Eletropaulo (as estimated by Eletropaulo) and a lesser amount from an unrelated company, Companhia de Transmissão de Energia Elétrica Paulista (“CTEEP”) (Eletropaulo and CTEEP were spun off from EEDSP pursuant to its privatization in 1998). In November 2002, the Fifth District Court rejected Eletropaulo's defenses in the execution suit. Eletropaulo appealed and in September 2003, the Appellate Court of the State of Rio de Janeiro (“AC”) ruled that Eletropaulo was not a proper party to the litigation because any alleged liability had been transferred to CTEEP pursuant to the privatization. In June 2006, the Superior Court of Justice (“SCJ”) reversed the Appellate Court's decision and remanded the case to the Fifth District Court for further proceedings, holding that Eletropaulo's liability, if any, should be determined by the Fifth District Court. Eletropaulo's subsequent appeals to the Special Court (the highest court within the SCJ) and the Supreme Court of Brazil were dismissed. Eletrobrás later requested that the amount of Eletropaulo's alleged debt be determined by an accounting expert appointed by the Fifth District Court. Eletropaulo consented to the appointment of such an expert, subject to a reservation of rights. In February 2010, the Fifth District Court appointed an accounting expert to determine the amount of the alleged debt and the responsibility for its payment in light of the privatization, in accordance with the methodology proposed by Eletrobrás. Pursuant to its reservation of rights, Eletropaulo filed an interlocutory appeal with the AC asserting that the expert was required to determine the issues in accordance with the methodology proposed by Eletropaulo, and that Eletropaulo should be entitled to take discovery and present arguments on the issues to be determined by the expert. In April 2010, the AC issued a decision agreeing with Eletropaulo's arguments and directing the Fifth District Court to proceed accordingly. Eletrobrás may restart the accounting proceedings at the Fifth District Court at any time, which would proceed according to the AC's April 2010 decision. In the Fifth District Court proceedings, the expert's conclusions will be subject to the Fifth District Court's review and approval. If Eletropaulo is determined to be responsible for the debt, after the amount of the alleged debt is determined, Eletrobrás will be entitled to resume the execution suit in the Fifth District Court at any time. If Eletrobrás does so, Eletropaulo will be required to provide security in the amount of its alleged liability. In that case, if Eletrobrás requests the seizure of such security and the Fifth District Court grants such request, Eletropaulo's results of operations may be materially adversely affected, and in turn the Company's results of operations could be materially adversely affected. In addition, in February 2008, CTEEP filed a lawsuit in the Fifth District Court against Eletrobrás and Eletropaulo seeking a declaration that CTEEP is not liable for any debt under the financing agreement. The parties are disputing the proper venue for the CTEEP lawsuit. Eletropaulo believes 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 August 2000, the FERC announced an investigation into the organized California wholesale power markets to determine whether rates were just and reasonable. Further investigations involved alleged market manipulation. FERC requested documents from each of the AES Southland, LLC plants and AES Placerita, Inc. AES Southland and AES Placerita have cooperated fully with the FERC investigations. AES Southland was not subject to refund liability because it did not sell into the organized spot markets due to the nature of its tolling agreement. After hearings at FERC, AES Placerita was found subject to refund liability of $588,000 plus interest for spot sales to the California Power Exchange from October 2, 2000 to June 20, 2001. As FERC investigations and hearings progressed, numerous appeals on related issues were filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Over the years, the Ninth Circuit issued several opinions that had the potential to expand the scope of the FERC proceedings and increase refund exposure for AES Placerita and other sellers of electricity. Following remand of one of the Ninth Circuit appeals in March 2009, FERC started a new hearing process involving AES Placerita and other sellers. In May 2009, AES Placerita entered into a settlement, approved by FERC in July 2009, concerning the claims before FERC against AES Placerita relating to the California energy crisis of 2000-2001, including the California refund proceeding. Pursuant to the settlement, AES Placerita paid $6 million and assigned a receivable of $168,119 due to it from the California Power Exchange in return for a release of all claims against it at FERC by the settling parties and other consideration. More than 98% of the buyers in the market elected to join the settlement. A small amount of AES Placerita's settlement payment was placed in escrow for buyers that did not join the settlement (“non-settling parties”). It is unclear whether the escrowed funds will be enough to satisfy any additional sums that might be determined to be owed to non-settling parties at the conclusion of the FERC proceedings concerning the California energy crisis. However, any such additional sums are expected to be immaterial to the Company's consolidated financial statements. In November 2009, one non-settling party, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (“SMUD”), filed an appeal of the FERC's approval of the settlement which is pending in the Ninth Circuit. SMUD's appeal has been stayed pending further order of the court. The settlement agreement is still effective and will continue to remain effective unless it is vacated by the Ninth Circuit. SMUD has reached a settlement in principal with buyers of electricity that, if approved by FERC, will leave only immaterial claims of non-settling parties against AES Placerita.

In August 2001, the Grid Corporation of Orissa, India, now Gridco Ltd. (“Gridco”), filed a petition against the Central Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (“CESCO”), an affiliate of the Company, with the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (“OERC”), alleging that CESCO had defaulted on its obligations as an OERC-licensed distribution company, that CESCO management abandoned the management of CESCO, and asking for interim measures of protection, including the appointment of an administrator to manage CESCO. Gridco, a state-owned entity, is the sole wholesale energy provider to CESCO. Pursuant to the OERC's August 2001 order, the management of CESCO was replaced with a government administrator who was appointed by the OERC. The OERC later held that the Company and other CESCO shareholders were not necessary or proper parties to the OERC proceeding. In August 2004, the OERC issued a notice to CESCO, the Company and others giving the recipients of the notice until November 2004 to show cause why CESCO's distribution license should not be revoked. In response, CESCO submitted a business plan to the OERC. In February 2005, the OERC issued an order rejecting the proposed business plan. The order also stated that the CESCO distribution license would be revoked if an acceptable business plan for CESCO was not submitted to and approved by the OERC prior to March 31, 2005. In its April 2, 2005 order, the OERC revoked the CESCO distribution license. CESCO has filed an appeal against the April 2, 2005 OERC order and that appeal remains pending in the Indian courts. In addition, 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. In December 2001, 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 CESCO Shareholders Agreement between Gridco, the Company, AES ODPL, Jyoti and CESCO (the “CESCO arbitration”). In the arbitration, 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. In September 2007, Gridco filed a challenge of the arbitration award with the local Indian court. In June 2008, Gridco filed a separate application with the local Indian court for an order enjoining the Company from selling or otherwise transferring its shares in Orissa Power Generation Corporation Ltd. (“OPGC”), an equity method investment, and requiring the Company to provide security in the amount of the contested damages in the CESCO arbitration until Gridco's challenge to the arbitration award is resolved. In June 2010, a 2-to-1 majority of the arbitral tribunal awarded the Company some of its costs relating to the arbitration. In August 2010, Gridco filed a challenge of the cost award with the local Indian court. 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 early 2002, Gridco made an application to the OERC requesting that the OERC initiate proceedings regarding the terms of OPGC's existing PPA with Gridco. In response, OPGC filed a petition in the Indian courts to block any such OERC proceedings. In early 2005, the Orissa High Court upheld the OERC's jurisdiction to initiate such proceedings as requested by Gridco. OPGC appealed that High Court's decision to the Supreme Court and sought stays of both the High Court's decision and the underlying OERC proceedings regarding the PPA's terms. In April 2005, the Supreme Court granted OPGC's requests and ordered stays of the High Court's decision and the OERC proceedings with respect to the PPA's terms. The matter is awaiting further hearing. Unless the Supreme Court finds in favor of OPGC's appeal or otherwise prevents the OERC's proceedings regarding the PPA's terms, the OERC will likely lower the tariff payable to OPGC under the PPA, which would have an adverse impact on OPGC's financials. OPGC believes that it has meritorious claims and defenses and will assert them vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In March 2003, the office of the Federal Public Prosecutor for the State of São Paulo, Brazil (“MPF”) notified AES Eletropaulo that it had commenced an inquiry related to the BNDES financings provided to AES Elpa and AES Transgás and the rationing loan provided to Eletropaulo, changes in the control of Eletropaulo, sales of assets by Eletropaulo and the quality of service provided by Eletropaulo to its customers, and requested various documents from Eletropaulo relating to these matters. In July 2004, the MPF filed a public civil lawsuit in the Federal Court of São Paulo (“FSCP”) alleging that BNDES violated Law 8429/92 (the Administrative Misconduct Act) and BNDES's internal rules by: (1) approving the AES Elpa and AES Transgás loans; (2) extending the payment terms on the AES Elpa and AES Transgás loans; (3) authorizing the sale of Eletropaulo's preferred shares at a stock-market auction; (4) accepting Eletropaulo's preferred shares to secure the loan provided to Eletropaulo; and (5) allowing the restructurings of Light Serviços de Eletricidade S.A. and Eletropaulo. The MPF also named AES Elpa and AES Transgás as defendants in the lawsuit because they allegedly benefited from BNDES's alleged violations. In May 2006, the FCSP ruled that the MPF could pursue its claims based on the first, second, and fourth alleged violations noted above. The MPF subsequently filed an interlocutory appeal with the Federal Court of Appeals (“FCA”) seeking to require the FCSP to consider all five alleged violations. Also, in July 2006, AES Elpa and AES Transgás filed an interlocutory appeal with the FCA, which was subsequently consolidated with the MPF's interlocutory appeal, seeking a transfer of venue and to enjoin the FCSP from considering any of the alleged violations. In June 2009, the FCA granted the injunction sought by AES Elpa and AES Transgás and transferred the case to the Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro. In May 2010, the MPF filed an appeal with the Superior Court of Justice challenging the transfer. The MPF's lawsuit before the FCSP has been stayed pending a final decision on the interlocutory appeals. AES Elpa and AES Brasiliana (the successor of AES Transgás) believe they have meritorious defenses to the allegations asserted against them and will defend themselves vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that they will be successful in their efforts.

AES Florestal, Ltd. (“Florestal”), had been operating a pole factory and had other assets, including a wooded area known as “Horto Renner,” in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (collectively, “Property”). Florestal had been under the control of AES Sul (“Sul”) since October 1997, when Sul was created pursuant to a privatization by the Government of the State of Rio Grande do Sul. After it came under the control of Sul, Florestal performed an environmental audit of the entire operational cycle at the pole factory. The audit discovered 200 barrels of solid creosote waste and other contaminants at the pole factory. The audit concluded that the prior operator of the pole factory, Companhia Estadual de Energia Elétrica (“CEEE”), had been using those contaminants to treat the poles that were manufactured at the factory. Sul and Florestal subsequently took the initiative of communicating with Brazilian authorities, as well as CEEE, about the adoption of containment and remediation measures. The Public Attorney's Office has initiated a civil inquiry (Civil Inquiry n. 24/05) to investigate potential civil liability and has requested that the police station of Triunfo institute a police investigation (IP number 1041/05) to investigate potential criminal liability regarding the contamination at the pole factory. The parties filed defenses in response to the civil inquiry. The Public Attorney's Office then requested an injunction which the judge rejected on September 26, 2008. The Public Attorney's office has a right to appeal the decision. The environmental agency (“FEPAM”) has also started a procedure (Procedure n. 088200567/059) to analyze the measures that shall be taken to contain and remediate the contamination. Also, in March 2000, Sul filed suit against CEEE in the 2nd Court of Public Treasure of Porto Alegre seeking to register in Sul's name the Property that it acquired through the privatization but that remained registered in CEEE's name. During those proceedings, AES subsequently waived its claim to re-register the Property and asserted a claim to recover the amounts paid for the Property. That claim is pending. In November 2005, the 7th Court of Public Treasure of Porto Alegre ruled that the Property must be returned to CEEE. CEEE has had sole possession of Horto Renner since September 2006 and of the rest of the Property since April 2006. In February 2008, Sul and CEEE signed a “Technical Cooperation Protocol” pursuant to which they requested a new deadline from FEPAM in order to present a proposal. In March 2008, the State Prosecution office filed a Public Class Action against AES Florestal, AES Sul and CEEE, requiring an injunction for the removal of the alleged sources of contamination and the payment of an indemnity in the amount of R$6 million ($4 million). The injunction was rejected and the case is in the evidentiary stage awaiting the judge's determination concerning the production of expert evidence. The above-referenced proposal was delivered on April 8, 2008. FEPAM responded by indicating that the parties should undertake the first step of the proposal which would be to retain a contractor. In its response, Sul indicated that such step should be undertaken by CEEE as the relevant environmental events resulted from CEEE's operations. It is estimated that remediation could cost approximately R$14.7 million ($9 million). Discussions between Sul and CEEE are ongoing.

In January 2004, the Company received notice of a “Formulation of Charges” filed against the Company by the Superintendence of Electricity of the Dominican Republic. In the “Formulation of Charges,” the Superintendence asserts that the existence of three generation companies (Empresa Generadora de Electricidad Itabo, S.A. (“Itabo”), Dominican Power Partners, and AES Andres BV) and one distribution company (Empresa Distribuidora de Electricidad del Este, S.A. (“Este”)) in the Dominican Republic, violates certain cross-ownership restrictions contained in the General Electricity Law of the Dominican Republic. In February 2004, the Company filed in the First Instance Court of the National District of the Dominican Republic an action seeking injunctive relief based on several constitutional due process violations contained in the “Formulation of Charges” (“Constitutional Injunction”). In February 2004, the Court granted the Constitutional Injunction and ordered the immediate cessation of any effects of the “Formulation of Charges,” and the enactment by the Superintendence of Electricity of a special procedure to prosecute alleged antitrust complaints under the General Electricity Law. In March 2004, the Superintendence of Electricity appealed the Court's decision. In July 2004, the Company divested any interest in Este. The Superintendence of Electricity's appeal is pending. The Company believes 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 July 2004, the Corporación Dominicana de Empresas Eléctricas Estatales (“CDEEE”) filed lawsuits against Itabo, an affiliate of the Company, in the First and Fifth Chambers of the Civil and Commercial Court of First Instance for the National District. CDEEE alleges in both lawsuits that Itabo spent more than was necessary to rehabilitate two generation units of an Itabo power plant and, in the Fifth Chamber lawsuit, that those funds were paid to affiliates and subsidiaries of AES Gener and Coastal Itabo, Ltd. (“Coastal”), a former shareholder of Itabo, without the required approval of Itabo's board of administration. In the First Chamber lawsuit, CDEEE seeks an accounting of Itabo's transactions relating to the rehabilitation. In November 2004, the First Chamber dismissed the case for lack of legal basis. On appeal, in October 2005 the Court of Appeals of Santo Domingo ruled in Itabo's favor, reasoning that it lacked jurisdiction over the dispute because the parties' contracts mandated arbitration. The Supreme Court of Justice is considering CDEEE's appeal of the Court of Appeals' decision. In the Fifth Chamber lawsuit, which also names Itabo's former president as a defendant, CDEEE seeks $15 million in damages and the seizure of Itabo's assets. In October 2005, the Fifth Chamber held that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute given the arbitration provisions in the parties' contracts. The First Chamber of the Court of Appeal ratified that decision in September 2006. In a related proceeding, in May 2005, Itabo filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to compel CDEEE to arbitrate its claims. The petition was denied in July 2005. Itabo's appeal of that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has been stayed since September 2006. Further, in September 2006, in an International Chamber of Commerce arbitration, an arbitral tribunal determined that it lacked jurisdiction to decide arbitration claims concerning these disputes. Itabo believes it has meritorious claims and defenses and will assert them vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In April 2006, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (“District Court”) on behalf of certain individual plaintiffs and all residents and/or property owners in the State of Mississippi who allegedly suffered harm as a result of Hurricane Katrina, and against the Company and numerous unrelated companies, whose alleged greenhouse gas emissions contributed to alleged global warming which, in turn, allegedly increased the destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina. The plaintiffs assert unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy/aiding and abetting, public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence, and fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment claims against the defendants. The plaintiffs seek damages relating to loss of property, loss of business, clean-up costs, personal injuries and death, but do not quantify their alleged damages. In August 2007, the District Court dismissed the case. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which, in October 2009, affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy claims. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' public and private nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims, and remanded those claims to the District Court for further proceedings. In February 2010, the Fifth Circuit granted the petitions for en banc rehearing filed by the Company and other defendants, and thereby vacated its October 2009 decision. In May 2010, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had lost its quorum for en banc review. In August 2010, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting the Supreme Court to direct the Fifth Circuit to reinstate the appeal and return it to the panel that issued the October 2009 decision. In January 2011, the Supreme Court denied the petition, ending the case.

In July 2007, the Competition Committee of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Republic of Kazakhstan (the “Competition Committee”) ordered Nurenergoservice, an AES subsidiary, to pay approximately KZT 18 billion ($120 million) for alleged antimonopoly violations in 2005 through the first quarter of 2007. The Competition Committee's order was affirmed by the economic court in April 2008 (“April 2008 Decision”). The economic court also issued an injunction to secure Nurenergoservice's alleged liability, freezing Nurenergoservice's bank accounts and prohibiting Nurenergoservice from transferring or disposing of its property. Nurenergoservice's subsequent appeals to the court of appeals were rejected. In February 2009, the Antimonopoly Agency (the Competition Committee's successor) seized approximately KZT 783 million ($5 million) from a frozen Nurenergoservice bank account in partial satisfaction of Nurenergoservice's alleged damages liability. However, on appeal to the Kazakhstan Supreme Court, in October 2009, the Supreme Court annulled the decisions of the lower courts because of procedural irregularities and remanded the case to the economic court for reconsideration. On remand, in January 2010, the economic court reaffirmed its April 2008 Decision. Nurenergoservice's appeals in the court of appeals (first panel) and the court of appeals (second panel) were unsuccessful. Nurenergoservice intends to file a further appeal to the Kazakhstan Supreme Court. In separate but related proceedings, in August 2007, the Competition Committee ordered Nurenergoservice to pay approximately KZT 1.8 billion ($12 million) in administrative fines for its alleged antimonopoly violations. Nurenergoservice's appeal to the administrative court was rejected in February 2009. Given the adverse court decisions against Nurenergoservice, the Antimonopoly Agency may attempt to seize Nurenergoservice's remaining assets, which are immaterial to the Company's consolidated financial statements. The Antimonopoly Agency has not indicated whether it intends to assert claims against Nurenergoservice for alleged antimonopoly violations post first quarter 2007. Nurenergoservice believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it; however, there can be no assurances that it will prevail in these proceedings.

In April 2009, the Antimonopoly Agency initiated an investigation of the power sales of Ust-Kamenogorsk HPP (“UK HPP”) and Shulbinsk HPP, hydroelectric plants under AES concession (collectively, the “Hydros”), in January through February 2009. The investigation of Shulbinsk HPP is ongoing, but the investigation of UK HPP has been completed. The Antimonopoly Agency determined that UK HPP abused its market position and charged monopolistically high prices for power in January through February 2009. The Agency sought an order from the administrative court requiring UK HPP to pay an administrative fine of approximately KZT 120 million ($1 million) and to disgorge profits for the period at issue, estimated by the Antimonopoly Agency to be approximately KZT 440 million ($3 million). No fines or damages have been paid to date, however, as the proceedings in the administrative court have been suspended due to the initiation of related criminal proceedings against officials of UK HPP. The Hydros believe they have meritorious defenses and will assert them vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that they will be successful in their efforts.

In April 2009, the Antimonopoly Agency initiated an investigation of Ust-Kamenogorsk TETS LLP's (“UKT”) power sales in 2008 through February 2009. The Antimonopoly Agency subsequently concluded that UKT abused its market position and charged monopolistically high prices for power and should pay an administrative fine of approximately KZT 136 million ($1 million). The Antimonopoly Agency later sought an order from the administrative court requiring UKT to pay the fine. The administrative court proceedings have been suspended due to a related criminal investigation of UKT employees. If the investigation is terminated and the Antimonopoly Agency prevails in the administrative proceedings, UKT may be ordered to pay the administrative fine and disgorge the profits from the sales at issue, estimated by the Antimonopoly Agency to be approximately 514 million KZT ($3 million). UKT believes it has meritorious defenses and will assert them vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In December 2007, an arbitral tribunal terminated ESSA's gas supply contracts with members of the Sierra Chata Consortium in light of the restrictions that had been placed on the export of gas by the Argentine Republic. ESSA thereafter terminated its gas transportation contract with Transportadora de Gas del Norte S.A. (“TGN”), and initiated arbitration seeking relief from the obligation to pay the firm tariff under ESSA's gas transportation contracts with Gasoducto GasAndes (Argentina) S.A. (“GasAndes Argentina”) and Gasoducto GasAndes S.A. (“GasAndes Chile”) or in the alternative, termination of such contracts. TGN (which later filed a lawsuit against ESSA in Argentina), GasAndes Argentina, and GasAndes Chile disputed that the restrictions on the export of gas justified the adjustment or termination of the respective gas transportation contracts and sought due tariff payments. On December 29, 2010, ESSA reached settlement agreements with GasAndes Argentina, GasAndes Chile, and TGN terminating the respective gas transportation contracts and resolving all pending legal disputes and potential future claims. ESSA recognized approximately $72 million as other expense for the three months ended December 31, 2010 related to the settlement agreements. Upon termination of the TGN gas transportation contract, ESSA is no longer required to pay certain charges imposed by the Argentine Republic relating to gas supply infrastructure.

In February 2008, the Native Village of Kivalina and the City of Kivalina, Alaska, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and numerous unrelated companies, claiming that the defendants' alleged GHG emissions have contributed to alleged global warming which, in turn, allegedly has led to the erosion of the plaintiffs' alleged land. The plaintiffs assert nuisance and concert of action claims against the Company and the other defendants, and a conspiracy claim against a subset of the other defendants. The plaintiffs seek to recover relocation costs, indicated in the complaint to be from $95 million to $400 million, and other unspecified damages from the defendants. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case, which the District Court granted in October 2009. The plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The parties have briefed the appeal and are awaiting a date for oral argument. The Company believes 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 July, 1993 the Public Attorney's office filed a claim against Eletropaulo, the Sao Paulo State Government, SABESP (a state-owned company), CETESB (a state-owned company) and DAEE (the municipal Water and Electric Energy Department) alleging that they were liable for pollution of the Billings Reservoir as a result of pumping water from the Pinheiros River into the Billings Reservoir. The events in question occurred while Eletropaulo was a state-owned company. An initial lower court decision in 2007 found the parties liable for the payment of approximately R$670 million ($401 million) for remediation. Eletropaulo subsequently appealed the decision to the Appellate Court of the State of Sao Paulo which reversed the lower court decision. In 2009, the Public Attorney's Office has filed appeals to both Superior Court of Justice (“SCJ”) and the Supreme Court (“SC”) and such appeals were answered by Eletropaulo in the fourth quarter of 2009. Eletropaulo believes 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 September 1996, a public civil action was asserted against Eletropaulo and Associação Desportiva Cultural Eletropaulo (the “Associação”) relating to alleged environmental damage caused by construction of the Associação near Guarapiranga Reservoir. The initial decision that was upheld by the Appellate Court of the State of Sao Paulo in 2006 found that Eletropaulo should repair the alleged environmental damage by demolishing certain construction and reforesting the area, and either sponsor an environmental project which would cost approximately R$1 million ($599 thousand) as of December 31, 2010, or pay an indemnification amount of approximately R$10.2 million ($6 million). Eletropaulo has appealed this decision to the Supreme Court and is awaiting a decision.

In February 2009, a CAA Section 114 information request from the EPA regarding Cayuga and Somerset was received. The request seeks various operating and testing data and other information regarding certain types of projects at the Cayuga and Somerset facilities, generally for the time period from January 1, 2000 through the date of the information request. This type of information request has been used in the past to assist the EPA in determining whether a plant is in compliance with applicable standards under the CAA. Cayuga and Somerset responded to the EPA's information request in June 2009, and they are awaiting a response from the EPA regarding their submittal. At this time, it is not possible to predict what impact, if any, this request may have on the Company, its results of operations or its financial position.

On February 2, 2009, the Cayuga facility received a Notice of Violation from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) that the facility had exceeded the permitted volume limit of coal ash that can be disposed of in the on-site landfill. Cayuga has met with NYSDEC and submitted a Landfill Liner Demonstration Report to them. Such report found that the landfill has adequate engineering integrity to support the additional coal ash and there is no inherent environmental threat. NYSDEC has indicated they accept the finding of the report. A permit modification was approved by the NYSDEC on May 14, 2010 and such permit modification allows for closure of this approximately 10-acre portion of the landfill. The construction in accordance with the approved permit modification was completed in November 2010 and the certification report for this construction project is currently being drafted to submit to the NYSDEC in the second quarter of 2011. While at this time it is not possible to predict what impact, if any, this matter may have on the Company, its results of operations or its financial position, based upon the discussions to date, the Company does not believe the impact will be material.

In March 2009, AES Uruguaiana Empreendimentos S.A. (“AESU”) initiated arbitration in the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) against YPF S.A. (“YPF”) seeking damages and other relief relating to YPF's breach of the parties' gas supply agreement (“GSA”). Thereafter, in April 2009, YPF initiated arbitration in the ICC against AESU and two unrelated parties, Companhia de Gas do Esado do Rio Grande do Sul and Transportador de Gas del Mercosur S.A. (“TGM”), claiming that AESU wrongfully terminated the GSA and caused the termination of a transportation agreement (“TA”) between YPF and TGM (“YPF Arbitration”). YPF seeks an unspecified amount of damages from AESU, a declaration that YPF's performance was excused under the GSA due to certain alleged force majeure events, or, in the alternative, a declaration that the GSA and the TA should be terminated without a finding of liability against YPF because of the allegedly onerous obligations imposed on YPF by those agreements. In addition, in the YPF Arbitration, TGM asserts that if it is determined that AESU is responsible for the termination of the GSA, AESU is liable for TGM's alleged losses, including losses under the TA. The procedural schedules for the arbitrations have been established but the hearing dates have not been scheduled to date. AESU believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In June 2009, the Supreme Court of Chile affirmed a January 2009 decision of the Valparaiso Court of Appeals (“VCA”) that the environmental permit for Empresa Electrica Campiche's (“EEC”) thermal power plant (“Plant”) was not properly granted and illegal. Construction of the Plant stopped as a consequence of the Supreme Court's decision. In December 2009, Chilean authorities approved new land use regulations that entitled EEC to apply for a new environmental permit. EEC applied for a new environmental permit in January 2010 and permit approval was granted by the Environmental Authority in February 2010. In March 2010, the Mayor of Puchuncaví and another third party challenged the new environmental permit before the VCA. The parties later entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the challenge to the new environmental permit was withdrawn in July 2010. In addition, the construction permit that is required to resume construction of the Plant was issued by the Municipality in August 2010. In September 2010, neighbors of Puchuncaví challenged the construction permit filing claims in the VCA. In November 2010, the VCA rejected the claims. The challenging parties subsequently filed appeals with the Supreme Court. In January 2011, the Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the VCA, finally rejecting the constitutional action. EEC has resumed construction of the Plant.

In June 2009, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States (“IACHR”) requested that the Republic of Panama suspend the construction of AES Changuinola S.A.'s hydroelectric project (“Project”) until the bodies of the Inter-American human rights system can issue a final decision on a petition (286/08) claiming that the construction violates the human rights of alleged indigenous communities. In July 2009, Panama responded by informing the IACHR that it would not suspend construction of the Project and requesting that the IACHR revoke its request. In June 2010, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights vacated the IACHR's request. With respect to the merits of the underlying petition, the IACHR heard arguments by the communities and Panama in November 2009, but has not issued a decision to date. The Company cannot predict Panama's response to any determination on the merits of the petition by the bodies of the Inter-American human rights system.

In July 2009, AES Energía Cartagena S.R.L. (“AES Cartagena”) received notices from the Spanish national energy regulator, Comisión Nacional de Energía (“CNE”), stating that the proceeds of the sale of electricity from AES Cartagena's plant should be reduced by roughly the value of the CO2 allowances that were granted to AES Cartagena for free for the years 2007, 2008, and the first half of 2009. In particular, the notices stated that CNE intended to invoice AES Cartagena to recover that value, which CNE calculated as approximately €20 million ($27 million) for 2007-2008 and an amount to be determined for the first half of 2009. In September 2009, AES Cartagena received invoices for €523,548 (approximately $694,000) for the allowances granted for free for 2007 and €19,907,248 (approximately $26 million) for 2008. In July 2010, AES Cartagena received an invoice for approximately €5.4 million ($7 million) for the allowances granted for free for the first half of 2009. AES Cartagena does not expect to be charged for CO2 allowances issued free of charge for subsequent periods. AES Cartagena has paid the amounts invoiced and has filed challenges to the CNE's demands in the Spanish judicial system. There can be no assurances that the challenges will be successful. AES Cartagena has demanded indemnification from its fuel supply and electricity toller, GDF-Suez, in relation to the CNE invoices under the long-term energy agreement (the “Energy Agreement”) with GDF-Suez. However, GDF-Suez has disputed that it is responsible for the CNE invoices under the Energy Agreement. Therefore, in September 2009, AES Cartagena initiated arbitration against GDF-Suez, seeking to recover the payments made to CNE. In the arbitration, AES Cartagena also seeks a determination that GDF-Suez is responsible for procuring and bearing the cost of CO2 allowances that are required to offset the CO2 emissions of AES Cartagena's power plant, which is also in dispute between the parties. To date, AES Cartagena has paid approximately €20 million ($27 million) for the CO2 allowances that have been required to offset 2008 and 2009 CO2 emissions. AES Cartagena expects that allowances will need to be purchased to offset emissions for subsequent years. The evidentiary hearing in the arbitration took place from May 31-June 4, 2010, and closing arguments were heard on September 1, 2010. In February 2011, the arbitral tribunal requested further briefing from the parties on certain issues in the arbitration. If AES Cartagena does not prevail in the arbitration and is required to bear the cost of carbon compliance, its results of operations could be materially adversely affected and, in turn, there could be a material adverse effect on the Company and its results of operations. AES Cartagena believes it has meritorious claims and will assert them vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In September 2009, the Public Defender's Office of the State of Rio Grande do Sul (“PDO”) filed a class action against AES Sul in the 16th District Court of Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul (“District Court”), claiming that AES Sul has been illegally passing PIS and COFINS taxes (taxes based on AES Sul's income) to consumers. According to ANEEL's Order No. 93/05, the federal laws of Brazil, and the Brazilian Constitution, energy companies such as AES Sul are entitled to highlight PIS and COFINS taxes in power bills to final consumers, as the cost of those taxes is included in the energy tariffs that are applicable to final consumers. Before AES Sul had been served with the action, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit in October 2009 on the ground that AES Sul had been properly highlighting PIS and COFINS taxes in consumer bills in accordance with Brazilian law. In April 2010, the PDO appealed to the Appellate Court of the State of Rio Grande do Sul (“AC”). In November 2010, the AC affirmed the dismissal. The PDO is expected to appeal. If the dismissal is ever reversed and AES Sul does not prevail in the lawsuit and is ordered to cease recovering PIS and COFINS taxes pursuant to its energy tariff, its potential prospective losses could be approximately R$9.6 million ($6 million) per month, as estimated by AES Sul. In addition, if AES Sul is ordered to reimburse consumers, its potential retrospective liability could be approximately R$1.2 billion ($718 million), as estimated by AES Sul. AES Sul believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings if it is served with the action; however, there can be no assurances that it would be successful in its efforts. Furthermore, if AES Sul does not prevail in the litigation it will seek to adjust its energy tariff to compensate it for its losses, but there can be no assurances that it would be successful in obtaining an adjusted energy tariff.

In October 2009, IPL received a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) and Finding of Violation from EPA pursuant to CAA Section 113(a). The NOV alleges violations of the CAA at IPL's three coal-fired electric generating facilities dating back to 1986. The alleged violations primarily pertain to EPA's Prevention of Significant Deterioration and nonattainment New Source Review (“NSR”) requirements under the CAA. Since receiving the letter, IPL management has met with EPA staff and is currently in discussions with the EPA regarding possible resolutions to this NOV. At this time, we cannot predict the ultimate resolution of this matter. However, settlements and litigated outcomes of similar cases have required companies to pay civil penalties and to install additional pollution control technology on coal-fired electric generating units. A similar outcome in this case could have a material impact to IPL and could, in turn, have a material impact on the Company. IPL would seek recovery through customer rates of any operating or capital expenditures related to pollution control technology systems to reduce regulated air emissions; however, there can be no assurances that it would be successful in that regard.

In November 2009, April 2010 and December 2010, substantially similar personal injury lawsuits were filed by a total of 26 residents and estates in the Dominican Republic against the Company, AES Atlantis, Inc., AES Puerto Rico, LP, AES Puerto Rico, Inc., and AES Puerto Rico Services, Inc., in the Superior Court for the State of Delaware. In each lawsuit the plaintiffs allege that the coal combustion byproducts of AES Puerto Rico's power plant were illegally placed in the Dominican Republic in October 2003 through March 2004 and subsequently caused the plaintiffs' birth defects, other personal injuries, and/or deaths. The plaintiffs do not quantify their alleged damages, but generally allege that they are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages. The AES defendants have moved for partial dismissal of both the November 2009 and April 2010 lawsuits on various grounds. (The AES Defendants have until mid-February to respond to the December 2010 lawsuit.) In September 2010, the Superior Court heard arguments on the motions. The Superior Court dismissed the plaintiffs' fraud allegations without prejudice to replead, and the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in November 2010. The AES defendants have filed a renewed motion to dismiss the amended issues. The remaining claims (other than fraud) addressed in the AES defendants' original motion to dismiss are still pending. The AES defendants believe they have meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against them and will defend themselves vigorously; however, there can be no assurances that they will be successful in their efforts.

On December 21, 2010, AES-3C Maritza East 1 EOOD, which owns an unfinished 670MW lignite-fired power plant in Bulgaria, made the first in a series of demands on the performance bond securing the construction Contractor's obligations under the parties' EPC Contract. The Contractor failed to complete the plant on schedule. The total amount demanded by Maritza under the performance bond is approximately €155 million ($205 million). However, the Contractor obtained a temporary injunction from a French court preventing the issuing bank from honoring the bond demands. As the performance bond is governed by English law, Maritza obtained a judgment from an English court that the bond should be paid, and then presented this judgment to the French court which issued the temporary injunction. However, on February 10, 2011, the French court issued a decision enjoining the issuing bank from honoring the demands on the performance bond pending the determination of the arbitration between Maritza and the Contractor, described below. Maritza is attempting to lift that injunction or otherwise obtain payment on its demands. In addition, in December 2010, the Contractor issued a notice of dispute alleging that the lignite that has been supplied by Maritza for commissioning of the power plant is out of specification, allegedly entitling the Contractor to an extension of time to complete the power plant, an increase to the contract price of approximately €62 million ($82 million), and other relief. The Contractor thereafter advised Maritza that it had stopped commissioning of the power plant's two units because of the characteristics of the lignite supplied, and, in January 2011, initiated arbitration on its lignite claim. Maritza disputes that the lignite is out of specification and intends to defend the arbitration and assert counterclaims for delay liquidated damages and other relief relating to the Contractor's failure to complete the power plant and other breaches of the EPC contract.