Company: SCE-PL
Filing Date: 2025-11-17
Form Type: 424B3
Source: 0001193125-25-283973
Chunk: 55

Company: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON Co
Filing Date: 2025-11-17
Form: 424B3
Chunk 55
---
 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 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 advised us that issues relating to the Contract and Takings Clauses of the
United States and California constitutions are essentially decided on a case-by-case basis and that the courts’ determinations, in most cases, appear to be
strongly influenced by the facts and circumstances of the particular case, and Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP has further advised us that there are no reported controlling judicial precedents that are directly on point. The opinions described above
will be subject to the qualifications included in them. The degree of impairment necessary to meet the standards for relief under a Takings Clause analysis or