The Company periodically reviews its obligations as they relate to compliance with environmental laws, including site restoration and remediation. As of September 30, 2011, the Company had recorded liabilities of $22 million for projected environmental remediation costs. Due to the uncertainties associated with environmental assessment and remediation activities, future costs of compliance or remediation could be higher or lower than the amount currently accrued. Based on currently available information and analysis, the Company believes that it is reasonably possible that costs associated with such liabilities, or as yet unknown liabilities, may exceed current reserves in amounts that could be material but cannot be estimated as of September 30, 2011.

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 U.S. or international subsidiaries and our consolidated results of operations.

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 United States Environmental Protection Agency (“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 U.S. Federal GHG Legislation Federal legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives in 2009 that, if adopted, would have imposed a nationwide cap-and-trade program to reduce GHG emissions. This legislation was never signed into law, and is no longer under consideration. In the U.S. Senate, several different draft bills pertaining to GHG legislation have been considered, including comprehensive GHG legislation similar to the legislation that passed the U.S. House of Representatives and more limited legislation focusing only on the utility and electric generation industry. It is uncertain whether any legislation pertaining to GHG emissions will be voted on and passed by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. If any such legislation is enacted into law, the impact could be material to the Company.

EPA GHG Regulation The EPA has 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 U.S. power plants. In particular, beginning 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, 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, require PSD review and are 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 the EPA's new source performance standards (“NSPS”) rulemaking for electric utility steam generating units (“EUSGUs”) based on the NSPS's failure to address GHG emissions. Under the settlement agreement, the EPA had committed to propose GHG emissions standards for EUSGUs by July 26, 2011. The EPA previously announced that it would delay the proposal of such standards until September 30, 2011, and it subsequently announced a further delay without specifying a deadline for the proposal of such standards. The EPA has also committed to finalize GHG NSPS 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 existing EUSGUs. Based on the guidelines, individual states will be required to develop regulations establishing GHG performance standards for existing EUSGUs within their states. 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 To date, the primary regulation of GHG emissions affecting the Company's U.S. plants 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. As noted in the Company's 2010 Form 10-K, we have estimated the costs to the Company of compliance with RGGI to be approximately $15 million for 2011.

International GHG Regulation The primary international agreement concerning GHG emissions is the Kyoto Protocol, which became effective on February 16, 2005 and requires the industrialized countries that have ratified it to significantly reduce their GHG emissions. The vast majority of the developing countries which have ratified the Kyoto Protocol have no GHG emissions reduction requirements. Many of the countries in which the Company's subsidiaries operate have no emissions reduction obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. In addition, of the 27 countries in which the Company's subsidiaries operate, all but one—the United States (including Puerto Rico)—have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol is currently expected to expire at the end of 2012, and countries have been unable to agree on a successor commitment period. The next annual United Nations conference to develop a successor international agreement is scheduled for November 2011 in South Africa. It currently appears unlikely that a successor agreement will be reached at such conference; however, if a successor agreement is reached the impact could be material to the Company.

There is substantial uncertainty with respect to whether U.S. federal GHG legislation will be enacted into law, whether new country-specific GHG legislation will be adopted in countries in which our subsidiaries conduct business, and whether a new international agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol will be reached. There is additional uncertainty regarding the final provisions or implementation of any potential U.S. federal or foreign country GHG legislation, the EPA's rules regulating GHG emissions and any international agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. In light of these uncertainties, the Company cannot accurately predict the impact on its consolidated results of operations or financial condition from potential U.S. federal or foreign country GHG legislation, the EPA's regulation of GHG emissions or any new international agreement on such emissions, or make a reasonable estimate of the potential costs to the Company associated with any such legislation, regulation or international agreement; however, the impact from any such legislation, regulation or international agreement could have a material adverse effect on certain of our U.S. or international subsidiaries and on the Company and its consolidated results of operations.

The Company's subsidiaries in the United States are subject to the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) and various state laws and regulations that regulate emissions of air pollutants, including SO2, NOX, particulate matter (“PM”), mercury and other hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”).

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, and on July 11, 2008, 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 7, 2011, the EPA issued a final rule titled “Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone in 27 States,” which is now referred to as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (“CSAPR”). Starting in 2012, the CSAPR requires significant reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions from covered sources, such as power plants, in many states in which subsidiaries of the Company operate. Once fully implemented in 2014, the rule requires additional SO2 emission reductions of 73% and additional NOx reductions of 54% from 2005 levels. The CSAPR will be implemented, in part, through a market-based program under which compliance may be achievable through the acquisition and use of new emissions allowances that the EPA will create. The CSAPR contemplates limited interstate and intra-state trading of emissions allowances by covered sources. Initially, at least through 2012, the EPA will issue emissions allowances to affected power plants based on state emissions budgets established by the EPA under the CSAPR. The availability of and cost to purchase allowances to meet the emission reduction requirements is uncertain at this time. The CSAPR was published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2011 and on October 6, 2011, the EPA proposed some technical revisions to the CSAPR, including allowing for additional allowances for certain states. The EPA will be taking public comments on the proposed revisions for thirty days, and such public comments will be considered by the EPA prior to promulgating a final rule. Many states, utilities and other affected parties have filed lawsuits in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seeking to stay the implementation of the CSAPR and challenging the validity of the CSAPR. We cannot predict the outcome of such litigation or the effect it might have on the possible implementation of the CSAPR. To comply with the CSAPR, additional pollution 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 Company. Additionally, compliance with the CSAPR could require the purchase of newly issued allowances, the switch to higher priced, lower sulfur coal or the retirement of existing generating units. While the capital costs, other expenditures or operational restrictions necessary to comply with the CSAPR cannot be specified at this time, and the outcome of litigation pertaining to CSAPR is uncertain, the Company anticipates that the CSAPR may have a material impact on the Company's business and results of operations.

As a result of prior EPA determinations and the 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 other metal species from coal and oil-fired power plants. The EPA has entered into a consent decree under which it is obligated to finalize the rule by November 2011, and it has subsequently requested an extension of this deadline until December 16, 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. The EPA published a proposed rule on May 3, 2011 that would establish national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (“NESHAP”) from coal and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units. The rule, as currently proposed, may require all coal-fired power plants to retire operations or install acid gas control technology, upgrade particulate control devices and/or install some other type of mercury control technology, such as sorbent injection. The public comment period for this proposed rule has expired, and the public comments will be considered by the EPA prior to promulgating a final rule. Most of the United States coal-fired plants operated by the Company's subsidiaries have acid gas scrubbers or comparable control technologies, but as proposed there are other improvements to such control technologies that may be needed at some of the Company's 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 the extent of the final regulations for hazardous air pollutants, but the cost of compliance with any such regulations could be material.

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 became effective on June 23, 2011. The regulation will require AES Gener, the Company's Chilean subsidiary, to install emissions reduction equipment at its existing thermal plants from late 2011 through 2015. The 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's U.S. facilities are subject to the U.S. Clean Water Act Section 316(b) rule issued by the EPA which seeks to protect fish and other aquatic organisms by requiring existing steam electric generating facilities to utilize the “best technology available” for cooling water intake structures. The EPA published a proposed rule establishing requirements under 316(b) regulations on April 20, 2011. The proposal, based on Section 316(b) of the U.S. Clean Water Act, establishes Best Technology Available (“BTA”) requirements regarding impingement standards with respect to aquatic organisms for all facilities that withdraw above 2 million gallons per day of water from certain water bodies and utilize at least 25% of the withdrawn water for cooling purposes. To meet these BTA requirements, as currently proposed, cooling water intake structures associated with once through cooling processes will need modifications of existing traveling screens that protect aquatic organisms and will need to add a fish return and handling system for each cooling system. Existing closed cycle cooling facilities may require upgrades to water intake structure systems. The proposal would also require comprehensive site-specific studies during the permitting process and may require closed-cycle cooling systems in order to meet BTA entrainment standards.

The public comment period for this proposed rule has expired, and the EPA will consider the public comments with a view to issuing a final rule by July of 2012. 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 protecting fish and other aquatic organisms 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 U.S. 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.

In the course of operations, many of the Company's facilities generate coal combustion byproducts (“CCB”), including fly ash, requiring disposal or processing. 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, and 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 May 2011, Senate Bill 251 became a law in the State of Indiana. Senate Bill 251 is a comprehensive bill which, among other things, provides Indiana utilities, including IPL, with a means for recovering 80% of costs incurred to comply with federal mandates through a periodic retail rate adjustment mechanism, and additional cost recovery is possible through a subsequent general rate case. This includes costs to comply with regulations from the EPA, FERC, NERC, the Department of Energy, etc., including capital intensive requirements and/or proposals such as those relating to cooling water intake regulations, waste management and coal combustion byproducts, wastewater effluent, MISO transmission expansion costs and polychlorinated biphenyls. It does not change existing legislation that allows for 100% recovery of clean coal technology designed to reduce air pollutants (Indiana Senate Bill 29).

Some of the most important features of Senate Bill 251 to IPL are as follows: any energy utility in Indiana seeking to recover federally mandated costs incurred in connection with a compliance project shall apply to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“IURC”) for a certificate of public convenience and necessity (“CPCN”) for the compliance project. It sets forth certain factors that the IURC must consider in determining whether to grant a CPCN. It further specifies that if the IURC approves a proposed compliance project and the projected federally mandated costs associated with the project, the following apply: (i) 80% of the approved costs shall be recovered by the energy utility through a periodic retail rate adjustment mechanism; (ii) 20% of the approved costs shall be deferred and recovered by the energy utility as part of the next general rate case filed by the energy utility with the IURC; and (iii) actual costs exceeding the projected federally mandated costs of the approved compliance project by more than 25% shall require specific justification and approval by the IURC before being authorized in the energy utility's next general rate case.

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 15 years.

The following table summarizes the Parent Company's contingent contractual obligations as of September 30, 2011. 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 $26 million.

Contingent contractual obligations	Amount		Number of Agreements	Maximum Exposure Range for Each Agreement
	(in millions)			(in millions)
Guarantees	$	357	23	<$1 - $53
Letters of credit under the senior secured credit facility		12	11	<$1 - $7
Cash collateralized letters of credit		260	13	<$1 - $223
Total	$	629	47

As of September 30, 2011, the Company had $16 million of commitments to invest in subsidiaries under construction and to purchase related equipment that were not included in the letters of credit discussed above. The Company expects to fund these net investment commitments in 2011. The exact payment schedules will be dictated by the construction milestones. Additionally, subject to regulatory approvals, the Company is committed to purchase DPL for $3.5 billion, see Note 17―Acquisitions for further information. We expect to fund these commitments from a combination of current liquidity and internally generated Parent Company cash flow.

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 of approximately $372 million and $448 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. These reserves are reported on the condensed consolidated balance sheets within “accrued and other liabilities” and “other long-term liabilities.” A significant portion of the 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 these reserves 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 but could not be estimated as of September 30, 2011. The material contingencies where a loss is reasonably possible are described below. In aggregate, the Company estimates that the range of potential losses related to these material contingences to be up to $1.2 billion. The amounts considered reasonably possible do not include amounts reserved, as discussed above. Where a loss or range of loss cannot be estimated, a statement to this effect has been included in the applicable case descriptions presented below.

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$1.2 billion ($656 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 has restarted the accounting proceedings at the Fifth District Court, which will proceed in accordance with the AC's April 2010 decision. The parties are briefing the issues. 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 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 seeking 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 of the Company, 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 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.

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”), for the period from January through February 2009. The investigation of both Hydros has now been completed. The Antimonopoly Agency determined that the Hydros abused their market position and charged monopolistically high prices for power from 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 the Hydros. In the course of criminal proceedings, the financial police have expanded the periods at issue to the entirety of 2009 in the case of UK HPP and from January through October 2009 in the case of Shulbinsk HPP, and sought increased damages of KZT 1.2 billion ($8 million) in the case of UK HPP and KZT 1.3 billion ($9 million) in the case of Shulbinsk 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 July 1993, the Public Attorney's office filed a claim against Eletropaulo, the Sao Paulo State Government, SABESP (a state-owned company), CETESB (the Environmental Agency of Sao Paulo State) 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$760 million ($415 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 filed appeals to both the Superior Court of Justice and the Supreme Court 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 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 was submitted 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 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 $712,000) for the allowances granted for free for 2007 and €19,907,248 (approximately $27 million) for 2008. In July 2010, AES Cartagena received an invoice for approximately €5 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 S.A. (“GDFS”), in relation to the CNE invoices under the long-term energy agreement (the “Energy Agreement”) with GDFS. However, GDFS has disputed that it is responsible for the CNE invoices under the Energy Agreement. Therefore, in September 2009, AES Cartagena initiated arbitration against GDFS, seeking to recover the payments made to CNE. In the arbitration, AES Cartagena also seeks a determination that GDFS 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 €25 million ($34 million) for the CO2 allowances that have been required to offset 2008, 2009 and 2010 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 on certain issues in the arbitration, which was later submitted by the parties. The tribunal has the matter under consideration. 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. The parties have agreed to settle the dispute subject to the closing of a share sale agreement, which is subject to regulatory and lender approvals. See Note 20—Subsequent Events for further information. If the transaction does not close, the arbitration will continue, including the risks described above.

In November 2009, April 2010, December 2010, April 2011, June 2011, and August 2011, substantially similar personal injury lawsuits were filed by a total of 47 residents and decedent 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 from October 2003 through March 2004 and subsequently caused the plaintiffs' birth defects, other personal injuries, and/or deaths. The plaintiffs did not quantify their alleged damages, but generally alleged that they are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages. The AES defendants moved for partial dismissal of both the November 2009 and April 2010 lawsuits on various grounds. In July 2011, the Superior Court dismissed the plaintiffs' international law and punitive damages claims, but held that the plaintiffs had stated intentional tort, negligence, and strict liability claims under Dominican law, which the Superior Court found governed the lawsuits. The Superior Court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaints in accordance with its decision, and in September 2011, the plaintiffs in the November 2009 and April 2010 lawsuits did so. The AES defendants will respond to those amended complaints by October 31, 2011. The AES defendants will also respond to the December 2010, April 2011, June 2011 and August 2011 lawsuits after the relevant plaintiffs file amended complaints. 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 670 MW 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 was approximately €155 million ($211 million). The Contractor obtained an injunction from a lower French court purportedly preventing the issuing bank from honoring the bond demands. However, the Versailles Court of Appeal canceled the injunction in July 2011, and therefore the issuing bank paid the bond demands in full. The Contractor may attempt to seek relief relating to the bond dispute in the French or English courts. In addition, in December 2010, the Contractor stopped commissioning of the power plant's two units because of the alleged characteristics of the lignite supplied to it for commissioning. In January 2011, the Contractor initiated arbitration on its lignite claim, seeking an extension of time to complete the power plant, an increase to the contract price, and other relief, including in relation to the bond demands. The Contractor later added claims relating to the alleged unavailability of the grid during commissioning. Maritza rejected the Contractor's claims and asserted 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. Maritza also terminated the EPC Contract for cause and asserted arbitration claims against the Contractor relating to the termination. The Contractor asserted counterclaims relating to the termination. The Contractor is seeking approximately €240 million ($326 million) in the arbitration, unspecified damages for alleged injury to reputation, and other relief. The arbitral hearing on the merits is in September 2012. Maritza 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.