Company: SCE-PL
Filing Date: 2025-11-24
Form Type: 424B1
Source: 0001193125-25-293755
Chunk: 51

Company: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON Co
Filing Date: 2025-11-24
Form: 424B1
Chunk 51
---
 fully paid and discharged. However, the Wildfire Financing Law further provides that nothing
in the State pledge precludes the State of California from limiting or altering the fixed recovery charges, recovery property or any financing order of the California commission, if and when adequate provision is made by law for the protection of
SCE, owners of recovery property and holders of recovery bonds.

Constitutional Matters

To date, no federal or California cases addressing the repeal or amendment of statutory provisions analogous to those contained in the Wildfire
Financing Law have been decided. There have been cases in which courts have applied the Contract Clause of the United States constitution and the Contract Clause of the California constitution to strike down legislation regarding similar matters,
such as legislation reducing or eliminating taxes, public charges or other sources of revenues servicing other types of bonds issued by public instrumentalities or private issuers (or issuing entities), or otherwise substantially impairing or
eliminating the security for bonds or other indebtedness. Based upon this case law, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP expects to deliver a reasoned opinion, prior to the closing of the offering of the bonds to the effect that, a reviewing court of
competent jurisdiction, in a properly prepared and presented case, would conclude that the State pledge constitutes a contractual relationship between the bondholders and the State of California, and that, absent a demonstration by the State of
California that any legislative action by the State of California, whether by the State legislature or the voters pursuant to their initiative rights, which becomes law (such action being referred to as a legislative action) that limits,
alters, or reduces the value of the recovery property or the fixed recovery charges so as to impair (a) the terms of the indenture or the bonds or (b) the rights and remedies of the bondholders (or the trustee acting on their behalf) (each
such act, an impairment), the bondholders could successfully challenge under the Federal Contract Clause or the California Contract Clause the constitutionality of any legislative action determined by such court to limit, alter or reduce the
value of the recovery property or the fixed recovery charges so as to cause an impairment prior to the time that the bonds are fully paid and discharged. The cases also indicate that the State’s justification would be subjected to a higher
degree of scrutiny,

- 45 -

and that the State would bear a more substantial burden, if the legislative action impairs a contract to which the State is a party (which we believe to be the case here), as contrasted to a