Company: SCE-PL
Filing Date: 2025-09-08
Form Type: SF-1
Source: 0001193125-25-198426
Chunk: 54

Company: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON Co
Filing Date: 2025-09-08
Form: SF-1
Chunk 54
---
 acts in the valid exercise of the state’s police power, if an evident and more moderate course would not serve the State’s
purposes equally well. We will file a copy of the Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP opinion as an exhibit to an amendment to the registration statement of which this prospectus is a part, or to one of our periodic filings with the SEC.

In addition, any legislative action adversely affecting the recovery property or the ability to collect fixed recovery charges may be
considered a “taking” under the United States or California constitutions. Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP has advised us that it is not aware of any federal or California court cases addressing the applicability of the Takings Clause of
the United States or California constitutions in a situation analogous to that

- 45 -

which would be involved in an amendment or repeal of the Wildfire Financing Law. It is possible that a court would decline even to apply a Takings Clause analysis to a claim based on an amendment
or repeal of the Wildfire Financing Law, since, for example, a court might determine that a Contract Clause analysis rather than a Takings Clause analysis should be applied. Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP expects to render a reasoned opinion, prior to
the closing of the offering of the bonds, to the effect that under existing case law, assuming a Takings Clause analysis were applied under the United States constitution or California constitution, the State of California would be required under
either such constitution to pay just compensation to the bondholders if the State’s repeal or amendment of the Wildfire Financing Law or taking of any other action in contravention of the State pledge, (a) constituted a permanent
appropriation of a substantial property interest of the bondholders in the recovery property or denied all economically productive use of the recovery property; (b) destroyed the recovery property other than in response to emergency conditions;
or (c) substantially reduced, altered or impaired the value of the recovery property so as to unduly interfere with the reasonable expectations of the bondholders arising from their investments in the bonds, provided that the court might take a
more expansive view of emergency conditions under the California Takings Clause, leading to correspondingly narrower restrictions on State action under the California Takings Clause than under the Federal Takings Clause. There is no assurance,
however, that, even if a court were to award just compensation, it would be sufficient for you to recover fully your investment in the bonds.

In connection with the foregoing, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP has