The following information updates and amends the information provided in the Company’s Form 10-K in Item 3—Legal Proceedings. Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Company’s Form 10-K and Form 10-Q. In accordance with the SEC’s disclosure rules, the Company has elected to disclose environmental proceedings involving the Company and a governmental authority if the amount of potential monetary sanctions, exclusive of interest and costs, that the Company reasonably believes will result from such proceeding is $1 million or more. Alternative Water Supply in Lieu of Carmel River Diversions Compliance with SWRCB Orders to Reduce Carmel River Diversions During June and July 2026, the SWRCB issued and subsequently amended a Notice of Hearing related to its consideration of a modification to the moratorium on new service connections contained in the 2009 Order. Written testimony is due August 19, 2026, followed by public comment and issuance of a draft order for consideration by the SWRCB. Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project CPUC Final Approval of Water Supply Project On September 17, 2025, the City, MCWD and the MPWMD filed applications for rehearing of the CPUC’s August 2025 final decision on the supply and demand projections supporting the need for the Water Supply Project. On September 22, 2025, these parties also filed a motion to stay the August 2025 final decision. On October 9, 2025, the CPUC issued a factual correction to the August 2025 final decision to find that the projected demand will outstrip supply by approximately 2,500 acre-feet per year for 2050. On May 4, 2026, the CPUC issued an order denying the motions for rehearing and to stay the August 2025 final decision. This proceeding is now closed. Approvals for Use of Outfall for Water Supply Project Brine Discharge On March 30, 2026, Monterey One Water, owner of the outfall through which the Water Supply Project proposes to discharge brine, approved the submission of an application to the Coastal Commission for a coastal development permit to construct modifications to the outfall to accommodate the brine. Monterey One Water submitted the application to the Coastal Commission on April 1, 2026. On April 29, 2026, the Coastal Commission issued a notice that the application was incomplete. Water Supply Project Land Acquisition and Slant Well Site Use On June 23, 2026, the California State Lands Commission unanimously approved an application filed by Cal Am to lease California state lands for the construction and use of four new subsurface slant wells and the conversion and use of the existing subsurface test slant well, all for the proposed Water Supply Project desalination facilities. The approval of this application by the California State Lands Commission was a required condition of the Coastal Commission’s November 2022 development permit for the phased development of the Water Supply Project. On July 24, 2026, the City, the MPWMD, MCWD, and the MCWD Groundwater Sustainability Agency filed a petition for writ of mandate in Monterey County Superior Court alleging that the State Lands Commission violated the California Environmental Quality Act and other California state laws in its approval of the lease for the Water Supply Project. This matter remains pending. Testimony and presentation of evidence at trial in the City’s May 2020 lawsuit concluded on May 14, 2026. A decision is expected by the end of 2026. Complaint Filed in CPUC Against Cal Am On June 16, 2026, the MPWMD, the City and MCWD jointly filed a complaint with the CPUC against Cal Am, seeking (i) an immediate stop to Cal Am’s current desalination project activities, (ii) to require Cal Am to seek modification of the CPUC’s 2018 final decision finding that the Water Supply Project meets its requirements for a certificate of public convenience and necessity, (iii) a finding that Cal Am is in violation of that final decision, and (iv) issuance of an order to show cause why Cal Am should not be sanctioned for implementing a phased project. The complainants argued that the implementation of the 6.4 million gallon per day desalination project with an initial phase of development of 4.8 million gallons per day, is not consistent with the CPUC’s 2018 final decision. Cal Am will respond to the complaint and believes it to be without merit. Proposed Acquisition of Monterey System Assets — Potential Condemnation MPWMD Condemnation Action The court has scheduled an evidentiary hearing for October 19, 2026, to consider whether LAFCO approval is required for the MPWMD to proceed with its eminent domain claim. 56 Table of Contents Mountaineer Gas Company Main Break Mountaineer Gas Customer Putative Class Action Lawsuits During the second and third quarters of 2026, discussions took place regarding a potential settlement framework as to the four pending putative class action lawsuits filed against Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC, purportedly on behalf of customers in Charleston, West Virginia related to this incident. On July 9, 2026, WVAWC and the Ruffin and Toliver plaintiffs entered into a term sheet with respect to a proposed settlement framework covering all claims and potential claims against WVAWC arising out of these matters for the entire class (the “Proposed Settlement”). Under the terms of the term sheet and any subsequent agreement related to the Proposed Settlement, WVAWC has not admitted, and will not admit, any liability or waive any defenses to any class member for any of the allegations made in the covered putative class action lawsuits. The proposed maximum amount of the Proposed Settlement with respect to WVAWC is currently estimated to be $9 million, of which the Company estimates that all or substantially all would be contributed by the Company’s general liability insurance carriers. The actual total amount to be paid to claimants through the Proposed Settlement will depend on the nature of the claims submitted and approved through a process to be negotiated by the parties and approved by the court. The Proposed Settlement has not had, and is not anticipated to have, any material impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The parties will next prepare a formal settlement agreement based on the terms of the term sheet and framework of the Proposed Settlement, which will be subject to preliminary and final approvals by the court. Mountaineer Gas Company Lawsuit On July 9, 2026, WVAWC filed a motion seeking a continuance of the August 10, 2026 trial date for this lawsuit. The trial date has been continued but has not currently been rescheduled. WVPSC General Investigation In June 2026, the WVPSC issued final orders in both of its general investigations related to the matters in the Mountaineer Gas Company main break incident and required WVAWC to file closed matters as to its handoff and valve practice and operations over the next six months. East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania Putative Class Action In August 2024, a complaint for a putative class action captioned McNair v. Pennsylvania-American Water Company was filed against the Company’s Pennsylvania subsidiary (“PAWC”) in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff lives in a residential community named Blue Mountain Lake Estates located in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Through the initial complaint, he sought to certify a class on behalf of all current and former property owners in, or residents of, Blue Mountain Lake Estates in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, whose water service has been provided by PAWC since August 2020. This complaint pertains to alleged elevated levels of naturally-occurring manganese in water supplied to Blue Mountain Lake Estates, including PAWC’s issuance of a Do Not Drink Public Notice for infants six months or younger (and noting other potentially vulnerable groups) in May 2024, based on sampling results that exceeded a health advisory level threshold. The complaint has three counts: public nuisance, private nuisance and breach of implied contract. Alleged damages include loss of use and enjoyment of property, property damage, loss of property value, inconvenience and annoyance. Monetary and injunctive relief is sought, including punitive damages. On November 24, 2025, the original plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Through the proposed amended complaint, the original plaintiff sought to add his wife as an additional named plaintiff and sought to add requests for punitive damages to both nuisance counts. The court granted the motion for leave on February 24, 2026. The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on March 3, 2026. Through the amended complaint, the plaintiffs modified the class period to be May 15, 2024 to the present. PAWC filed its answer to the amended complaint on May 29, 2026. On January 9, 2026, PAWC filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss all counts. On January 22, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to conduct punitive damages discovery. On June 11, 2026, PAWC’s motion for summary judgment was denied, and plaintiff’s motion remains pending. A hearing was conducted on June 29, 2026, on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and on July 21, 2026, the court issued an order denying the motion. This matter remains pending. The Company and PAWC believe that PAWC has valid, meritorious defenses to the claims, and PAWC will continue to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. 57 Table of Contents PFAS Multi-District Litigation As of June 30, 2026, the Company has received settlement payments from defendants in the multi-district litigation (the “MDL”) totaling $234 million, net of legal fees and administrative costs. The Company is seeking regulatory approval from the respective PUCs to apply the net proceeds of the settlement payments for the benefit of customers, where permissible. As of July 1, 2026, out of 11 Company utility subsidiaries that are parties to the MDL settlements and have filed to obtain such regulatory approval, approvals have been obtained for seven, two have been denied, and two remain pending. When and as received, funds are initially being held in a law firm escrow account prior to distribution to the Company’s utility subsidiaries that are parties to the MDL settlements after approval or denial is received from the applicable PUCs. As of June 30, 2026, the funds held in the escrow account and not yet transferred to the Company or returned to customers, totaled $131 million. Approximately $101 million of the escrowed funds were transferred from the escrow account for distribution to the Company’s utility subsidiaries. The Company anticipates that, during the remainder of 2026, it may receive one or more additional settlement payments from parties to the MDL settlements.