Common use of State Action Clause in Contracts

State Action. Under the Securitization Law, the State of Texas has pledged that it will not take or permit any action that would impair the value of the Transition Property transferred on such date, or, except as permitted by Section 39.307 (as incorporated through Section 36.403(a)) of the Securitization Law, reduce, alter or impair the System Restoration Charges relating to the Transition Property until the principal, interest and premium and any other charges incurred and contracts to be performed in connection with the System Restoration Bonds relating to the Transition Property have been paid and performed in full. Under the laws of the State of Texas and the United States, the State of Texas could not constitutionally take any action of a legislative character including the repeal or amendment of the Securitization Law, which would substantially limit, alter or impair the Transition Property or other rights vested in the Holders pursuant to the Financing Order or substantially limit, alter, impair or reduce the value or amount of the Transition Property, unless such action is a reasonable exercise of the sovereign powers of the State of Texas and of a character reasonable and appropriate to further a legitimate public purpose, and, under the takings clauses of the United States and Texas Constitutions, the State of Texas could not repeal or amend the Securitization Law or take any other action in contravention of its pledge quoted above without paying just compensation to the Holders, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction if doing so would constitute a permanent appropriation of a substantial property interest of the Holders in the Transition Property and deprive the Holders of their reasonable expectations arising from their investments in the System Restoration Bonds. There is no assurance, however, that, even if a court were to award just compensation it would be sufficient to pay the full amount of principal and interest on the System Restoration Bonds.

State Action. Under the Securitization LawFinancing Act, the State of Texas has pledged that it will not take or permit any action that would impair the value of the Transition Property transferred on such date, or, except as permitted by Section 39.307 (as incorporated through Section 36.403(a)) of the Securitization LawFinancing Act, reduce, alter or impair the System Restoration Charges relating to the Transition Property until the principal, interest and premium and any other charges incurred and contracts to be performed in connection with the System Restoration Bonds relating to the Transition Property have been paid and performed in full. Under the laws of the State of Texas and the United States, the State of Texas could not constitutionally take any action of a legislative character including the repeal or amendment of the Securitization LawFinancing Act, which would substantially limit, alter or impair the Transition Property or other rights vested in the Holders pursuant to the Financing Order or substantially limit, alter, impair or reduce the value or amount of the Transition Property, unless such action is a reasonable exercise of the sovereign powers of the State of Texas and of a character reasonable and appropriate to further a legitimate public purpose, and, under the takings clauses of the United States and Texas Constitutions, the State of Texas could not repeal or amend the Securitization Law Financing Act or take any other action in contravention of its pledge quoted above without paying just compensation to the Holders, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction if doing so would constitute a permanent appropriation of a substantial property interest of the Holders in the Transition Property and deprive the Holders of their reasonable expectations arising from their investments in the System Restoration Bonds. There is no assurance, however, that, even if a court were to award just compensation it would be sufficient to pay the full amount of principal and interest on the System Restoration Bonds.

State Action. Under the Securitization Law, the State of Texas (including the PUCT) has pledged that it will not take or permit any action that would impair the value of the Series 2003-1 Transition Property transferred on such dateProperty, or, except as permitted by Section 39.307 (as incorporated through Section 36.403(a)) of the Securitization Law, reduce, alter or impair the System Restoration Series 2003-1 Transition Charges relating to the Series 2003-1 Transition Property until the principal, interest and premium and any other charges incurred and contracts to be performed in connection with the System Restoration Series 2003-1 Bonds relating to the Series 2003-1 Transition Property have been paid and performed in full. Under the laws of the State of Texas and the United States, Holders of the Series 2003-1 Bonds could successfully challenge under the Federal Contract Clause and the Texas Contract Clause the constitutionality of any legislation passed by the State of Texas could not constitutionally take any action of a legislative character Texas, including the PUCT, which becomes law that repeals or amends the Securitization Law in such a manner that substantially impairs the value of the rights of the Holders of the Series 2003-1 Bonds or the Series 2003-1 Transition Charges prior to the time that the Series 2003-1 Bonds are fully paid and discharged, unless it were determined that such repeal or amendment of the Securitization Law, which would substantially limit, alter or impair the Transition Property or other rights vested in the Holders pursuant to the Financing Order or substantially limit, alter, impair or reduce the value or amount of the Transition Property, unless such action is was a legitimate and reasonable exercise of the State of Texas's sovereign powers of and reasonable and necessary to serve a significant and legitimate public purpose. A court would conclude that adverse action by the Texas Legislature or the PUCT that repeals the State of Texas and of Texas' pledge to the Series 2003-1 Bondholders or otherwise adversely affects the Series 2003-1 Transition Property would constitute a character reasonable and appropriate to further a legitimate public purpose, and, compensable taking under the takings clauses Takings Clauses of the United States and Texas Constitutions, if the State of court determines that such action is an intentional action by the Texas could not repeal Legislature or amend the Securitization Law or take any other action in contravention of its pledge quoted above without paying just compensation to the HoldersPUCT, as determined by effects a court of competent jurisdiction if doing so would constitute a permanent appropriation of a substantial property interest regulatory taking of the Holders in the Series 2003-1 Transition Property and deprive the Holders of their reasonable expectations arising from their investments in the System Restoration Bondsis for public use. There is no assurance, however, that, even if a court were to award just compensation it would be sufficient to pay the full amount of principal and interest on the System Restoration Series 2003-1 Bonds.

State Action. Under the Securitization Law, the State of Texas has pledged that it will not take or permit any action that would impair the value of the Transition Property transferred on such date, or, except as permitted by Section 39.307 (as incorporated through Section 36.403(a)) of the Securitization Law, reduce, alter or impair the System Restoration Transition Charges relating to the such Transition Property until the principal, interest and premium and any other charges incurred and contracts to be performed in connection with the System Restoration Transition Bonds of such Series relating to the such Transition Property have been paid and performed in full. Under the laws of the State of Texas and the United States, the State of Texas could not constitutionally take any action of a legislative character including the repeal or amendment of the Securitization Law, which would substantially limit, alter or impair the Transition Property or other rights vested in the Holders pursuant to the Financing Order or substantially limit, alter, impair alter or reduce the value or amount of the Transition Property, unless such action is a reasonable exercise of the sovereign powers of the State of Texas and of a character reasonable and appropriate to further a legitimate public purpose, and, under the takings clauses of the United States and Texas Constitutions, the State of Texas could not repeal or amend the Securitization Law or take any other action in contravention of its pledge quoted above without paying just compensation to the Holders, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction if doing so would constitute a permanent appropriation of a substantial property interest of the Holders in the Transition Property and deprive the Holders of their reasonable expectations arising from their investments in the System Restoration Transition Bonds. There is no assurance, however, that, even if a court were to award just compensation it would be sufficient to pay the full amount of principal and interest on the System Restoration Transition Bonds.

State Action. Under the Securitization Law, the State of Texas has pledged that it will not take or permit any action that would impair the value of the Transition Property transferred on such date, or, except as permitted by Section 39.307 (as incorporated through Section 36.403(a)) of the Securitization Law, reduce, alter or impair the System Restoration Transition Charges relating to the Transition Property until the principal, interest and premium and any other charges incurred and contracts to be performed in connection with the System Restoration Transition Bonds relating to the Transition Property have been paid and performed in full. Under the laws of the State of Texas and the United States, the State of Texas could not constitutionally take any action of a legislative character including the repeal or amendment of the Securitization Law, which would substantially limit, alter or impair the Transition Property or other rights vested in the Holders pursuant to the Financing Order or substantially limit, alter, impair or reduce the value or amount of the Transition Property, unless such action is a reasonable exercise of the sovereign powers of the State of Texas and of a character reasonable and appropriate to further a legitimate public purpose, and, under the takings clauses of the United States and Texas Constitutions, the State of Texas could not repeal or amend the Securitization Law or take any other action in contravention of its pledge quoted above without paying just compensation to the Holders, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction if doing so would constitute a permanent appropriation of a substantial property interest of the Holders in the Transition Property and deprive the Holders of their reasonable expectations arising from their investments in the System Restoration Transition Bonds. There is no assurance, however, that, even if a court were to award just compensation it would be sufficient to pay the full amount of principal and interest on the System Restoration Transition Bonds.

State Action. Under the Securitization Law, the State of Texas has pledged that it will not take or permit any action that would impair the value of the Transition Property transferred on such date, or, except as permitted by Section 39.307 (as incorporated through Section 36.403(a)) of the Securitization Law, reduce, alter or impair the System Restoration Transition Charges relating to the such Transition Property until the principal, interest and premium and any other charges incurred and contracts to be performed in connection with the System Restoration Bonds Notes of such Series relating to the such Transition Property have been paid and performed in full. Under the laws of the State of Texas and the United States, the State of Texas could not constitutionally take any action of a legislative character including the repeal or amendment of the Securitization Law, which would substantially limit, alter or impair the Transition Property or other rights vested in the Holders pursuant to the Financing Order or substantially limit, alter, impair alter or reduce the value or amount of the Transition Property, unless such action is a reasonable exercise of the sovereign powers of the State of Texas and of a character reasonable and appropriate to further a legitimate public purpose, and, under the takings clauses of the United States and Texas Constitutions, the State of Texas could not repeal or amend the Securitization Law or take any other action in contravention of its pledge quoted above without paying just compensation to the Holders, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction if doing so would constitute a permanent appropriation of a substantial property interest of the Holders in the Transition Property and deprive the Holders of their reasonable expectations arising from their investments in the System Restoration BondsNotes. There is no assurance, however, that, even if a court were to award just compensation it would be sufficient to pay the full amount of principal and interest on the System Restoration BondsNotes.

State Action. Under the Securitization Law, the State of Texas (including the PUCT) has pledged that it will not take or permit any action that would impair the value of the Series 2003-1 Transition Property transferred on such dateProperty, or, except as permitted by Section 39.307 (as incorporated through Section 36.403(a)) of the Securitization Law, reduce, alter or impair the System Restoration Series 2003-1 Transition Charges relating to the Series 2003-1 Transition Property until the principal, interest and premium and any other charges incurred and contracts to be performed in connection with the System Restoration Series 2003-1 Bonds relating to the Series 2003-1 Transition Property have been paid and performed in full. Under the laws of the State of Texas and the United States, Holders of the Series 2003-1 Bonds could successfully challenge under the Federal Contract Clause and the Texas Contract Clause the constitutionality of any legislation passed by the State of Texas could not constitutionally take any action of a legislative character Texas, including the PUCT, which becomes law that repeals or amends the Securitization Law in such a manner that substantially impairs the value of the rights of the Holders of the Series 2003-1 Bonds or the Series 2003-1 Transition Charges prior to the time that the Series 2003-1 Bonds are fully paid and discharged, unless it were determined that such repeal or amendment of the Securitization Law, which would substantially limit, alter or impair the Transition Property or other rights vested in the Holders pursuant to the Financing Order or substantially limit, alter, impair or reduce the value or amount of the Transition Property, unless such action is was a legitimate and reasonable exercise of the State of Texas's sovereign powers of and reasonable and necessary to serve a significant and legitimate public purpose. A court would conclude that adverse action by the Texas Legislature or the PUCT that repeals the State of Texas and of Texas' pledge to the Series 2003-1 Bondholders or otherwise adversely affects the Series 2003-1 Transition Property would constitute a character reasonable and appropriate to further a legitimate public purpose, and, compensable taking under the takings clauses Takings Clauses of the United States and Texas Constitutions, if the State of court determines that such action is an intentional action by the Texas could not repeal Legislature or amend the Securitization Law or take any other action in contravention of its pledge quoted above without paying just compensation to the HoldersPUCT, as determined by effects a court of competent jurisdiction if doing so would constitute a permanent appropriation of a substantial property interest regulatory taking of the Holders in the Series 2003-1 Transition Property and deprive the Holders of their reasonable expectations arising from their investments in the System Restoration Bondsis for public use. There is no assurance, however, that, even if a court were to award just compensation it would be sufficient to pay the full amount of principal and interest on the System Restoration Bonds.Series 2003-1