Company: SCE-PL
Filing Date: 2025-11-24
Form Type: 424B1
Source: 0001193125-25-293755
Chunk: 52

Company: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON Co
Filing Date: 2025-11-24
Form: 424B1
Chunk 52
---
contract solely between private parties. It may be possible for the California legislature to repeal or amend the Wildfire Financing Law or for the California commission to amend or revoke the financing order notwithstanding the State pledge, if the
California legislature or the California commission acts in order to serve a significant and legitimate public purpose, such as protecting the public health and safety or responding to a national or regional catastrophe affecting SCE, or if the
California legislature otherwise 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 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