Table of Contents

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

PROXY STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 14(a) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

(AMENDMENT NO.___)

Filed by the Registrant [X]

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant [   ]

Check the appropriate box:

PG & E Corporation

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

Table of Contents

		PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company Joint Notice of 2002 Annual Meetings • Joint Proxy Statement

March 13, 2002

To the Shareholders of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company:

	Sincerely,
	Robert D. Glynn, Jr.
	Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer,
	and President of PG&E Corporation
	Chairman of the Board of
	Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

To the Shareholders of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company:

      The annual meetings of shareholders of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company will be held concurrently on Wednesday, April 17, 2002, at 10:00 a.m., in the Masonic Auditorium, 1111 California Street, San Francisco, California, for the purpose of considering the following matters:

      The Boards of Directors have fixed the close of business on February 19, 2002, as the record date for the purpose of determining shareholders who are entitled to receive notice of and to vote at the annual meetings.

	By Order of the Boards of Directors,
	Linda Y.H. Cheng
	Corporate Secretary,
	PG&E Corporation and
	Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Table of Contents

Joint Proxy Statement

        This Joint Proxy Statement provides information concerning the Joint Annual Meetings of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, which will be held concurrently on Wednesday, April 17, 2002. The Joint Proxy Statement and proxy cards, together with the PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company joint 2001 Annual Report to Shareholders, were mailed beginning on or about March 13, 2002.

Questions and Answers

Why did you send me this proxy statement and a proxy card?

      The Boards of Directors of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Boards) are soliciting proxies for use at their respective annual meetings, including any adjournments or postponements. This proxy statement and a proxy card were sent to anyone who owned shares of common stock of PG&E Corporation and/or shares of preferred stock of Pacific Gas and Electric Company at the close of business on February 19, 2002. This date is the record date set by the Boards to determine which shareholders may vote at the Joint Annual Meetings. This Joint Proxy Statement describes certain matters management expects will be voted on at the annual meetings, gives you information about PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company and their managements, and provides general information regarding the voting process and attendance at the annual meetings.

How do I vote?

      You can attend and vote at the meetings, or the proxyholders will vote your shares as you indicate on your proxy. There are three ways to submit your proxy.

                    Over the Internet at http://www.eproxy.com/pcg/

      If you submit your proxy over the Internet or by telephone, your vote must be received by 4:00 p.m., Eastern daylight time, on Tuesday, April 16, 2002. These Internet and telephone voting procedures comply with California law.

What am I voting on and what are the Board’s voting recommendations?

      PG&E Corporation shareholders will be voting on the following items:

      Pacific Gas and Electric Company shareholders will be voting on the following items:

1

Table of Contents

What vote is required to approve each item?

      To elect directors:

      To approve the PG&E Corporation management proposals to amend the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws:

      To approve other items described in the Joint Proxy Statement:

What is a broker non-vote?

      If you hold your shares indirectly through a broker, bank, trustee, nominee, or other third party, that party is the registered owner of your shares and submits the proxy to vote your shares. You are the beneficial owner of the shares and typically you will be asked to provide the registered owner with instructions as to how your shares should be voted.

      Broker non-votes occur when brokers or nominees have voted on some of the matters to be acted on at a meeting, but do not vote on certain other matters because, under the rules of the New York Stock Exchange, they are not permitted to vote on those other matters without instructions from the beneficial owners of the shares.

Will shareholders be asked to vote on matters other than those described in the Joint Proxy Statement?

      If other matters are raised during the Joint Annual Meetings, shareholders will vote on such matters only if PG&E Corporation or Pacific Gas and Electric Company, as appropriate, determines that these other matters satisfy advance notice requirements in the appropriate Bylaws and otherwise properly come before the annual meetings. If other matters properly come before the annual meetings, the proxyholders named on the enclosed proxy card will vote the shares for which they hold proxies at their discretion, to the extent permitted by law.

What shares are included on my proxy card?

      For PG&E Corporation, the shares included on your proxy card represent all the shares of PG&E Corporation stock in your account, including shares in the PG&E Corporation Dividend Reinvestment Plan. For Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the shares included on your card represent all the shares of Pacific Gas and Electric Company preferred stock in your account.

      If you are a shareholder of both PG&E Corporation common stock and Pacific Gas and Electric Company preferred stock, you will receive a separate proxy card for each company. If you receive more than one proxy card for either company, it means your shares are held in more than one account. You should vote the shares on all your proxy cards. If you would like to consolidate your accounts, you may do so by contacting our transfer agent, Mellon Investor Services LLC, toll-free at 1-800-719-9056.

2

Table of Contents

How many copies of the proxy statement and annual report will I receive?

      If you are a registered holder of PG&E Corporation common stock and/or Pacific Gas and Electric Company preferred stock, you will receive one proxy statement and annual report for each account.

      If you are a beneficial owner of PG&E Corporation common stock and/or Pacific Gas and Electric Company preferred stock and receive your proxy materials through ADP Investor Communication Services (ADP), and there are multiple beneficial owners at the same address, you may receive fewer proxy statements and annual reports than the number of beneficial owners at that address. Securities and Exchange Commission regulations permit ADP to deliver only one proxy statement and annual report to multiple beneficial owners sharing an address, unless we receive contrary instructions from any beneficial owner at that same address. If you receive your proxy materials through ADP and wish to receive a separate proxy statement or annual report in the future, please contact the office of the Corporate Secretary of PG&E Corporation or Pacific Gas and Electric Company, as appropriate, at P.O. Box 193722, San Francisco, CA 94119-3722 or by calling 1-415-267-7070.

What if I return my proxy but don’t specify how I want my shares voted?

      The PG&E Corporation proxyholders will vote those shares “For” Items 1 through 4 and “Against” Items 10 through 15. The Pacific Gas and Electric Company proxyholders will vote those shares “For” Items 1, 2, and 5 through 9.

What if I do not submit my proxy?

      Your shares will not be voted if you do not provide a proxy or vote at the annual meetings.

Can I change my proxy vote?

      Yes, you can change your proxy vote or revoke your proxy any time before the annual meetings by (1) returning a later-dated proxy card, (2) entering a new vote over the Internet or by telephone, (3) notifying the Corporate Secretary in writing, or (4) submitting a written ballot at the meetings.

Is my vote confidential?

      Yes. According to each company’s confidential voting policy, shareholder votes will only be revealed to a non-employee proxy tabulator or an independent inspector of election, except (1) as necessary to meet legal requirements, (2) in a dispute regarding authenticity of proxies and ballots, (3) in the event of a proxy contest, if the other party does not agree to comply with the confidential voting policy, and (4) where disclosure may be necessary for either company to assert or defend claims.

Who will count the votes?

      Mellon Investor Services LLC (MIS) will act as the proxy tabulators and the inspectors of election for the 2002 annual meetings. MIS is independent of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company and their directors, officers, and employees.

How many shares are eligible to vote at the annual meetings?

      On February 19, 2002, there were 364,206,190 shares of PG&E Corporation common stock, without par value, outstanding and entitled to vote. Each share is entitled to one vote.

      On February 19, 2002, there were 17,258,280 shares of Pacific Gas and Electric Company preferred stock, $25 par value, and 326,926,667 shares of Pacific Gas and Electric Company common stock, $5 par value, outstanding and entitled to vote. Each share is entitled to one vote. PG&E Corporation and a subsidiary hold 100 percent of the issued and outstanding shares of Pacific Gas and Electric Company common stock. Together they own approximately 95 percent of the total outstanding voting stock of Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Holders of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s preferred stock hold approximately 5 percent of the Company’s total outstanding voting stock.

May I attend the annual meetings?

      All shareholders of record as of the close of business on February 19, 2002, may attend the annual meetings of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

3

Table of Contents

      Real-time captioning services and assistive listening devices will be available at the meetings for the hearing impaired. Please contact an usher if you wish to be seated in the real-time captioning section or require an assistive listening device. Audio cassette recordings of the meetings may be requested by calling the office of the Corporate Secretary.

What do I need to do in order to attend the annual meetings?

      If you are a registered shareholder, you will receive an admission ticket along with your proxy card. Please bring the admission ticket to the meetings.

      If a broker, bank, trustee, nominee, or other third party holds your shares, please inform that party that you plan to attend the annual meetings and ask for a legal proxy. Bring the legal proxy to the shareholder registration area when you arrive at the meetings and we will issue you an admission ticket. If you cannot get a legal proxy in time, we will issue an admission ticket to you if you bring a copy of your brokerage or bank account statement showing that you owned PG&E Corporation or Pacific Gas and Electric Company stock as of February 19, 2002.

      All shareholders must have an admission ticket to attend the annual meetings. Also, shareholders will be asked to present valid picture identification, such as a driver’s license or passport, before being admitted to the meetings. Cameras, recording devices, and other electronic devices will not be permitted at the meetings, and no items will be allowed into the meetings which might pose a concern for the safety of those attending.

Will I be able to ask questions during the annual meetings?

      During the meetings, there may be time for some shareholders to ask questions. The Chair of the meetings may need to limit questions in order to maintain an orderly meeting and to give shareholders the maximum opportunity to participate. Therefore, there may not be enough time for everyone to get a chance to speak. If you do not get a chance to ask questions during the meetings, members of management will be available after the meetings.

How do I recommend someone to be a director?

      You may recommend any person to be a director of PG&E Corporation or Pacific Gas and Electric Company by writing to the Corporate Secretary. The Nominating and Compensation Committee will consider nominees recommended by shareholders for election to the Boards.

      If you wish to nominate a candidate for director, you must provide timely and proper written notice of the nomination in the manner described in the Bylaws of the appropriate company. Notice of director nominations proposed to be brought before the 2003 annual meetings of PG&E Corporation or Pacific Gas and Electric Company must be received at the principal executive office of the appropriate company no later than January 27, 2003. For a copy of either company’s Bylaws, send a written request to that company’s Corporate Secretary.

When are shareholder proposals due for the 2003 annual meetings?

      If you would like to submit a proposal for inclusion in either company’s proxy statement for the 2003 annual meetings, the company’s Corporate Secretary must receive your proposal by November 13, 2002.

      If you would like to introduce any other business at either company’s 2003 annual meeting of shareholders, you must provide timely and proper written notice of the matter in the manner described in the Bylaws of the appropriate company. For a copy of either company’s Bylaws, send a written request to that company’s Corporate Secretary.

      Notice of other business proposed to be brought before the 2003 annual meetings of PG&E Corporation or Pacific Gas and Electric Company must be received at the principal executive office of the appropriate company no later than January 27, 2003. However, if the 2003 annual meeting of either company is scheduled for a date that differs by more than 30 days from the anniversary date of the 2002 Joint Annual Meetings, the shareholder’s notice will be timely if it is received no later than the tenth day following the date on which each company publicly discloses the date of its 2003 annual meeting.

      Shareholder proposals and nominations received after these deadlines will not be considered at the 2003 annual meetings.

4

Table of Contents

How much did this proxy solicitation cost?

      PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company hired D.F. King & Co., Inc. to assist in the distribution of proxy materials and solicitation of votes. The estimated fee is $11,500 plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. In addition, PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company will reimburse brokerage houses and other custodians, nominees, and fiduciaries for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses for forwarding proxy and solicitation material to shareholders.

What is the address of the principal executive office?

      Correspondence may be addressed to:

Your vote is important.

5

Table of Contents

          Nine and ten directors will be elected to serve on the Boards of Directors of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, respectively, to hold office until the next annual meetings or until their successors shall be elected and qualified, except in the case of death, resignation, or removal of a director. The nine nominees for director of PG&E Corporation and the ten nominees for director of Pacific Gas and Electric Company whom the respective Boards propose for election are the same, except for Gordon R. Smith, who is a nominee for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company Board only. The composition of these slates of nominees is consistent with the policy of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company that at least 75 percent of their Boards shall be composed of directors who are neither current nor former officers or employees of PG&E Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, or any of their respective subsidiaries.

      Information is provided on the following pages about the nominees for directors, including their principal occupations for the past five years, certain other directorships, age, and length of service as a director of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Membership on Board committees, attendance at Board and committee meetings, and ownership of stock of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company are indicated in separate sections following the individual resumes of the nominees.

      All of the nominees have agreed to serve if elected. Should any of the nominees become unavailable at the time of the meeting to accept nomination or election as a director, the respective proxyholders named on the enclosed PG&E Corporation or Pacific Gas and Electric Company proxy card will vote for substitute nominees at their discretion.

The Boards of Directors of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company Unanimously Recommend the Election of Their Respective Nominees for Director Presented in This Joint Proxy Statement.

6

Table of Contents

Nominees for Directors of PG&E Corporation and

		David R. Andrews Mr. Andrews is Senior Vice President Government Affairs, General Counsel, and Secretary of PepsiCo, Inc. (food and beverage businesses), and has held that position since February 2002. Prior to joining PepsiCo, Inc., Mr. Andrews was a partner in the law firm of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, LLP from May 2000 to January 2002 and from 1981 to July 1997. From August 1997 to April 2000, he served as the legal advisor to the U.S. Department of State and former Secretary Madeleine Albright. Mr. Andrews, 60, has been a director of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company since 2000. He also is a director of UnionBanCal Corporation.
		David A. Coulter Mr. Coulter is Vice Chairman of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (financial services and retail banking), and has held that position since January 2001. Prior to the merger with J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated, he was Vice Chairman of The Chase Manhattan Corporation (bank holding company) from August 2000 to December 2000. He was a partner in the Beacon Group, L.P. (investment banking firm) from January 2000 to July 2000, and was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of BankAmerica Corporation and Bank of America NT&SA from May 1996 to October 1998. Mr. Coulter, 54, has been a director of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company since 1996.
		C. Lee Cox Mr. Cox is retired Vice Chairman of AirTouch Communications, Inc. and retired President and Chief Executive Officer of AirTouch Cellular (cellular telephone and paging services). He was an executive officer of AirTouch Communications, Inc. and its predecessor, PacTel Corporation, from 1987 until his retirement in April 1997. Mr. Cox, 60, has been a director of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company since 1996. He also is a director of Riverstone Networks, Inc.
		William S. Davila Mr. Davila is President Emeritus of The Vons Companies, Inc. (retail grocery). He was President of The Vons Companies, Inc. from 1986 until his retirement in May 1992. Mr. Davila, 70, has been a director of Pacific Gas and Electric Company since 1992 and a director of PG&E Corporation since 1996. He also is a director of The Home Depot, Inc. and Hormel Foods Corporation.
		Robert D. Glynn, Jr. Mr. Glynn is Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, and President of PG&E Corporation and Chairman of the Board of Pacific Gas and Electric Company. He has been an officer of PG&E Corporation since December 1996 and an officer of Pacific Gas and Electric Company since January 1988. Mr. Glynn, 59, has been a director of Pacific Gas and Electric Company since 1995 and a director of PG&E Corporation since 1996.

7

Table of Contents

		David M. Lawrence, MD Dr. Lawrence is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and has been an executive officer of those companies for more than the past five years. Dr. Lawrence, 61, has been a director of Pacific Gas and Electric Company since 1995 and a director of PG&E Corporation since 1996. He also is a director of Agilent Technologies Inc.
		Mary S. Metz Dr. Metz is President of S. H. Cowell Foundation, and has held that position since January 1999. Prior to that date, she was Dean of University Extension, University of California, Berkeley from July 1991 to June 1998. Dr. Metz, 64, has been a director of Pacific Gas and Electric Company since 1986 and a director of PG&E Corporation since 1996. She also is a director of Longs Drug Stores Corporation, SBC Communications Inc., and UnionBanCal Corporation.
		Carl E. Reichardt Mr. Reichardt is Vice Chairman of the Ford Motor Company, and has held that position since October 2001. He is the retired Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Wells Fargo & Company (bank holding company) and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. He was an executive officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. from 1978 until his retirement in December 1994. Mr. Reichardt, 70, has been a director of Pacific Gas and Electric Company since 1985 and a director of PG&E Corporation since 1996. He also is a director of ConAgra Foods, Inc., Ford Motor Company, HCA, Inc., HSBC Holdings PLC, McKesson Corporation, and Newhall Management Corporation.
		Gordon R. Smith* Mr. Smith is President and Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and has been an officer of Pacific Gas and Electric Company since 1980. Mr. Smith, 54, has been a director of Pacific Gas and Electric Company since 1997.
		Barry Lawson Williams Mr. Williams is President of Williams Pacific Ventures, Inc. (business consulting and mediation), and has held that position since 1987. He also served as interim President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Management Association (management development organization) from November 2000 to June 2001. Mr. Williams, 57, has been a director of Pacific Gas and Electric Company since 1990 and a director of PG&E Corporation since 1996. He also is a director of CH2M Hill Companies, Ltd., Newhall Management Corporation, R.H. Donnelley Inc., The Simpson Manufacturing Company Inc., Synavant Inc., and USA Education, Inc.

8

Table of Contents

Board Committees

      The committees of the PG&E Corporation Board of Directors are the Executive Committee, Audit Committee, Finance Committee, Nominating and Compensation Committee, and Public Policy Committee. The Pacific Gas and Electric Company Board of Directors has an Executive Committee and Audit Committee. All committee members are directors of PG&E Corporation or Pacific Gas and Electric Company, as appropriate. To ensure that all committee members can perform their duties in an intelligent and fully informed manner, committee members and other directors have access to all of PG&E Corporation’s and Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s books, records, and other documents of any kind. The current membership and duties of these committees are described below.

Executive Committees

      Each Executive Committee, subject to the provisions of law and certain limits imposed by the PG&E Corporation or the Pacific Gas and Electric Company Board (as the case may be), may exercise any of the powers and perform any of the duties of the PG&E Corporation Board or the Pacific Gas and Electric Company Board, respectively. The Executive Committees meet as needed. One PG&E Corporation Executive Committee meeting was held in 2001 and no Pacific Gas and Electric Company Executive Committee meetings were held in 2001.

Audit Committees

      The Audit Committees of PG&E Corporation (five meetings were held in 2001) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (five meetings were held in 2001) advise and assist the Boards of Directors of those entities in fulfilling their responsibilities in connection with financial and accounting practices, internal controls, external and internal auditing programs, business ethics, and compliance with laws, regulations, and policies that may have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements of PG&E Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and their respective subsidiaries. The Audit Committees satisfy themselves as to the independence and competence of PG&E Corporation’s and Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s independent public accountants, and review and discuss with the independent accountants and with PG&E Corporation’s and Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s officers and internal auditors the scope and results of the independent accountants’ audit work, consolidated quarterly and annual financial statements, the quality and effectiveness of internal controls, and compliance with laws, regulations, policies, and programs. The Audit Committees also recommend to the appropriate Board of Directors the firm of independent public accountants to be selected to audit PG&E Corporation’s and Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s accounts, and make further inquiries as they deem necessary or desirable to inform themselves as to the conduct of the affairs of PG&E Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and their respective subsidiaries.

      The members of the Audit Committees of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company are identical. The Audit Committees are composed entirely of directors who are (1) financially knowledgeable, including at least one member who has accounting or related financial management expertise, (2) neither current nor former officers or employees of PG&E Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, or their subsidiaries, (3) not consultants to PG&E Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, or any of their subsidiaries, and

9

Table of Contents

Finance Committee

      The Finance Committee of PG&E Corporation (eight meetings were held in 2001) advises and assists the Board with respect to the financial and capital investment policies and objectives of PG&E Corporation and its subsidiary companies, including specific actions required to achieve those objectives. The Finance Committee reviews long-term financial and investment plans and strategies, annual financial plans, dividend policy, short-term and long-term financing plans, proposed capital investments, proposed divestments, major commercial banking, investment banking, financial consulting, and other financial relations of PG&E Corporation or its subsidiaries, and risk management activities. Each year, the Finance Committee presents for the Board of Directors’ review and approval (1) a five-year financial plan for PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries that incorporates, among other things, the Corporation’s business strategy goals, and (2) an annual budget that reflects elements of the approved five-year plan. Members of the Board of Directors receive a monthly report that compares the Corporation’s performance to the budget and provides other information regarding financial performance.

      One member of the Committee, who is neither a current nor former employee of, nor current consultant to, PG&E Corporation or any of its subsidiaries, is appointed by the Board of Directors as the Committee’s Chair.

Nominating and Compensation Committee

      The Nominating and Compensation Committee of PG&E Corporation (four meetings were held in 2001) advises and assists the Boards of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company with respect to the selection and compensation of directors. It also advises and assists PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries on employment, compensation, benefits policies and practices, and the development, selection, and compensation of policy-making officers. The Nominating and Compensation Committee reviews and acts upon the compensation of officers of PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries, except that the compensation of the Chief Executive Officers of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company is established by the full Board of Directors of PG&E Corporation or Pacific Gas and Electric Company (as the case may be) upon recommendation of the Committee, and the Committee has delegated to the PG&E Corporation Chief Executive Officer the authority to approve compensation for certain officers of PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries. The Committee also reviews long-range planning for executive development and succession, and the composition and performance of the Boards of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

      The Nominating and Compensation Committee is composed entirely of directors who are (1) neither current nor former officers or employees of PG&E Corporation or any of its subsidiaries, (2) not consultants to PG&E Corporation or any of its subsidiaries, and (3) neither current nor former officers or employees of any other corporation on whose board of directors any PG&E Corporation officer serves as a member. One member of the Committee is appointed by the Board of Directors as the Committee’s Chair.

Public Policy Committee

      The Public Policy Committee of PG&E Corporation (two meetings were held in 2001) advises and assists the Board of Directors with respect to public policy issues that could affect significantly the interests of the customers, shareholders, or employees of PG&E Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and their respective subsidiaries. The Public Policy Committee reviews the policies and practices of PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries with respect to protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, charitable and community service organizations and activities, equal opportunity in hiring and promoting employees, and development of minority-owned and women-owned businesses as suppliers to PG&E Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and their subsidiaries. The Committee also reviews significant societal, governmental, and environmental trends and issues that may affect the operations of PG&E Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, or their subsidiaries.

      One member of the Committee, who is neither a current nor former employee of, nor current consultant to, PG&E Corporation or any of its subsidiaries, is appointed by the Board of Directors as the Committee’s Chair.

10

Table of Contents

Attendance at Board and Committee Meetings

      Thirteen meetings of the PG&E Corporation Board of Directors and twenty meetings of the PG&E Corporation Board committees were held in 2001. Overall attendance of incumbent directors at such meetings was 94%. Individual attendance at meetings of the PG&E Corporation Board of Directors and Board committees was as follows: D. R. Andrews 96%, D. A. Coulter 84%, C. L. Cox 95%, W. S. Davila 100%, R. D. Glynn, Jr. 100%, D. M. Lawrence 84%, M. S. Metz 95%, C. E. Reichardt 96%, and B. L. Williams 96%.

      Twelve meetings of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company Board of Directors and five meetings of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company Board committees were held in 2001. Overall attendance of incumbent directors at such meetings was 96%. Individual attendance at the meetings was as follows: D. R. Andrews 100%, D. A. Coulter 92%, C. L. Cox 94%, W. S. Davila 100%, R. D. Glynn, Jr. 100%, D. M. Lawrence 92%, M. S. Metz 94%, C. E. Reichardt 92%, G. R. Smith 100%, and B. L. Williams 94%.

Compensation of Directors

      Each director who is not an officer or employee of PG&E Corporation or Pacific Gas and Electric Company receives a quarterly retainer of $7,500 plus a fee of $1,000 for each Board or Board committee meeting attended. Non-employee directors who chair Board committees receive an additional quarterly retainer of $625. Under the Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, directors of PG&E Corporation or Pacific Gas and Electric Company may elect to defer all or part of such compensation for varying periods. Directors who participate in the Deferred Compensation Plan may convert their deferred compensation into a number of common stock equivalents, the value of which is tied to the market value of PG&E Corporation common stock. Alternatively, participating directors may direct that their deferred compensation earn interest.

      No director who serves on both the PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company Boards and corresponding committees is paid additional compensation for concurrent service on Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Board or its committees, except that separate meeting fees are paid for each meeting of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company Board, or a Pacific Gas and Electric Company Board committee, that is not held concurrently or sequentially with a meeting of the PG&E Corporation Board or a corresponding PG&E Corporation Board committee. It is the usual practice of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company that meetings of the respective Boards and corresponding committees are held concurrently and, therefore, that a single meeting fee is paid to each director for each set of meetings.

      In addition, directors of PG&E Corporation or Pacific Gas and Electric Company are reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in attending Board or committee meetings. Directors of PG&E Corporation or Pacific Gas and Electric Company also are reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with other activities undertaken on behalf of or for the benefit of PG&E Corporation or Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

      Effective January 1, 1998, the PG&E Corporation Retirement Plan for Non-Employee Directors was terminated. Directors who had accrued benefits under the Plan were given a one-time option of receiving at retirement the benefit accrued through 1997, or of converting the present value of their accrued benefit into a PG&E Corporation common stock equivalent investment held in the Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors. The payment of frozen accrued retirement benefits, or distributions from the Deferred Compensation Plan attributable to the conversion of retirement benefits, cannot be made until the later of age 65 or retirement from the Board.

      Under the Non-Employee Director Stock Incentive Plan, a component of the PG&E Corporation Long-Term Incentive Program, on the first business day of January of each year, each non-employee director of PG&E Corporation is entitled to receive stock-based grants with a total aggregate equity value of $30,000, composed of (1) restricted shares of PG&E Corporation common stock valued at $10,000 (based on the closing price of PG&E Corporation common stock on the first business day of the year), and (2) a combination, as elected by the director, of non-qualified stock options and common stock equivalents with a total equity value of $20,000, based on equity value increments of $5,000. The exercise price of stock options is equal to the market value of PG&E Corporation common stock (i.e., the closing price) on the date of grant. Restricted stock and stock options vest over the five-year period following the date of grant, except that restricted stock and stock options will vest immediately upon mandatory retirement from the Board, upon a director’s death or disability, or in the event of a change in control. Common stock equivalents awarded are payable in the form of PG&E Corporation common stock only following a director’s retirement from the Board, upon a director’s death or disability, or in the event of a change in control. Unvested awards are forfeited if the recipient ceases to be a director for any other reason.

11

Table of Contents

      On January 2, 2001, each non-employee director received 511 restricted shares of PG&E Corporation common stock. In addition, directors who were granted stock options received options to purchase 1,077 shares of PG&E Corporation common stock for each $5,000 increment of equity value (subject to the aggregate $20,000 limit) at an exercise price of $19.5625 per share, and directors who were granted common stock equivalents received 255 common stock equivalent units for each $5,000 increment of equity value (subject to the aggregate $20,000 limit).

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions

      Mr. Andrews, a director of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, resigned from the law firm of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, LLP (McCutchen) in January 2002. Mr. Andrews did not personally provide legal services to PG&E Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, or their affiliates. During 2001, McCutchen provided general legal services to Pacific Gas and Electric Company in the normal course of business.

Legal Proceedings

Proofs of Claims Filed in the Bankruptcy Case

      On April 6, 2001, Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under the provisions of Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (Bankruptcy Court). Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, Pacific Gas and Electric Company retains control of its assets and is authorized to operate its business as a debtor in possession while being subject to the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court.

      Bankruptcy law imposes an automatic stay to prevent parties from making certain claims or taking certain actions that would interfere with the estate or property of a Chapter 11 debtor. In general, Pacific Gas and Electric Company may not pay pre-petition debts without the Bankruptcy Court’s permission. Through September 5, 2001, the last day for non-governmental creditors to file proofs of claim, non-governmental claims were submitted for an approximate aggregate amount of $42.1 billion. This amount includes claims filed by generators, which Pacific Gas and Electric Company believes have been overstated, and claims by financial institutions, which Pacific Gas and Electric Company believes contain significant duplication. The Bankruptcy Court also has disallowed approximately $9 billion of claims filed by non-governmental entities. J.P. Morgan Trust Co. of Delaware submitted a proof of claim for approximately $1.45 million dollars relating to its ownership interest in shares of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s preferred stock. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank submitted a proof of claim for approximately $173 million, related to its provision of a stand-by letter of credit which provides credit and liquidity support for certain of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Pollution Control Bonds. Both entities are subsidiaries of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., which was created on December 31, 2000, in a merger between The Chase Manhattan Corporation and J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated. Mr. David Coulter, a director of both PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, is a Vice Chairman of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, responsible for Retail and Middle Market Financial Services and for Investment Management and Private Banking.

California Attorney General Complaint

      On January 10, 2002, the California Attorney General (AG) filed a complaint in the San Francisco Superior Court against PG&E Corporation and its directors, as well as against the directors of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, based on allegations of unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. Among other allegations, the AG alleges that past transfers of money from Pacific Gas and Electric Company to PG&E Corporation, and allegedly from PG&E Corporation to other affiliates of PG&E Corporation, violated various conditions established by the California Public Utilities Commission  (CPUC) in decisions approving the holding company formation. The AG also alleges that the December 2000 and January and February 2001 ringfencing transactions by which PG&E Corporation subsidiaries complied with credit rating agency criteria to establish independent credit ratings violated the holding company conditions. The AG alleges that these ringfencing transactions included conditions that restricted PG&E National Energy Group’s ability to provide any funds to PG&E Corporation through dividends, capital distributions or similar payments, reducing PG&E Corporation’s cash and thereby impairing PG&E Corporation’s ability to comply with the first priority condition and subordinating Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s interests to the interests of PG&E Corporation and its other affiliates. (On January 9, 2002, the CPUC issued a decision interpreting the “first priority condition” and concluded that the condition, at least under certain circumstances, includes the requirement that each of the holding companies “infuse the utility with all types of capital necessary for the utility to fulfill its obligation to

12

Table of Contents

      The AG seeks injunctive relief, the appointment of a receiver, restitution in an amount according to proof, civil penalties of $2,500 against each defendant for each violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 and that the total penalty not be less than $500 million, and costs of the lawsuit.

      In addition, the AG alleges that, through Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s bankruptcy proceedings, PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company engaged in unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices by seeking to implement the transactions proposed in the proposed Plan of Reorganization filed in Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s bankruptcy proceeding. The AG’s complaint also seeks restitution of assets allegedly wrongfully transferred to PG&E Corporation from Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The Bankruptcy Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction of these claims. Therefore, on February 8, 2002, PG&E Corporation filed a notice of removal in the Bankruptcy Court to transfer the AG’s complaint to the Bankruptcy Court.

      On February 15, 2002, a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to stay, the complaint was filed in the Bankruptcy Court.

Federal Securities Lawsuit

      On April 16, 2001, a complaint was filed against PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entitled Jack Gillam; DOES 1 TO 5, Inclusive, and All Persons similarly situated vs. PG&E Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company; and DOES 6 to 10, Inclusive. The complaint was filed after Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Pacific Gas and Electric Company informed plaintiff that the action is stayed by the automatic stay provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and on or about April 23, 2001, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice with respect to Pacific Gas and Electric Company. By order entered on or about May 31, 2001, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

      On August 9, 2001, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint entitled Jack Gillam, et al. vs. PG&E Corporation, Robert D. Glynn, Jr., and Peter A. Darbee, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The first amended complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who purchased PG&E Corporation common stock or certain shares of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s preferred stock between July 20, 2000, and April 9, 2001, claims that defendants caused PG&E Corporation’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the second and third quarters of 2000 to be materially misleading in violation of federal securities laws by recording as a deferred cost and capitalizing as a regulatory asset the under-collections that resulted when escalating wholesale energy prices caused Pacific Gas and Electric Company to pay far more to purchase electricity than it was permitted to collect from customers. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, based largely on public disclosures by PG&E Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and others regarding the under-collections, the risk that they might not be recoverable, the financial consequences of non-recovery, and other information from which analysts and investors could assess for themselves the probability of recovery. On January 14, 2002, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint with leave to amend the complaint. On February 4, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entitled Jack Gillam, et al. vs. PG&E Corporation, and Robert D. Glynn, Jr. In addition to containing many of the same allegations as were contained in the prior complaint, the complaint contains allegations similar to the allegations in the California Attorney General’s complaint against PG&E Corporation, discussed above. The defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

Board of Directors Retirement Policy

      It is the policy of the Boards of Directors of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company that a person may not be designated as a candidate for election or re-election as a director after he or she has reached the age of 70. Due to the current financial and business situation, the Boards of Directors of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company elected to adopt a one-year waiver of the retirement policy for purposes of nominating candidates for re-election at the 2002 annual meetings of shareholders. The Boards may determine whether to waive the retirement policy on a year-to-year basis in light of the current business climate.

13

Table of Contents

Security Ownership of Management

      The following table sets forth the number of shares of PG&E Corporation common stock beneficially owned (as defined in the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission) as of January 31, 2002, by the respective directors of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the nominees for director, the current executive officers of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company named in the Summary Compensation Table on pages 37-38, and all directors and executive officers of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company as a group. The number of shares shown for each such person, and for the directors, nominees for director, and executive officers as a group, constituted less than 1 percent of the outstanding shares of PG&E Corporation common stock. As of January 31, 2002, no director, nominee for director, or executive officer owned shares of any class of Pacific Gas and Electric Company securities. The table also sets forth common stock equivalents credited to the accounts of directors and executive officers under PG&E Corporation’s deferred compensation and equity plans.

14

Table of Contents

15

Table of Contents

          On the recommendation of the Audit Committees of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the Boards of Directors of those entities have selected Deloitte & Touche LLP as the independent public accountants to examine the consolidated financial statements of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company for the year 2002. Deloitte & Touche LLP is a major national accounting firm with substantial expertise in the energy and utility businesses. Deloitte & Touche LLP has been employed to perform this function for PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company since 1999.

      Audit Fees. For the year ended December 31, 2001, estimated fees for services rendered by Deloitte & Touche LLP for the reviews of Forms 10-Q and for the audits of the financial statements of PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries are $3.6 million. This amount includes fees for stand-alone audits of various subsidiaries, including estimated fees of $0.9 million for Pacific Gas and Electric Company and its subsidiaries.

      Financial Information Systems Design and Implementation Fees. For the year ended December 31, 2001, Deloitte & Touche LLP and its affiliates did not render any services related to the design and implementation of financial information systems for PG&E Corporation or Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

      All Other Fees. For the year ended December 31, 2001, aggregate fees for all other services rendered by Deloitte & Touche LLP and its affiliates to PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries consisted of $1.6 million of fees for services relating to financings, regulatory filings, and accounting consultations that should be performed only by the Corporation’s independent auditor (“audit related fees”), $3.0 million of fees for tax services, and $4.0 million of other non-audit related fees. These amounts include $24,000 of audit related fees and $21,000 of other non-audit related fees for Pacific Gas and Electric Company and its subsidiaries.

      One or more representatives of Deloitte & Touche LLP will be present at the annual meetings. They will have the opportunity to make a statement if they so desire, and will be available to respond to appropriate questions from shareholders.

      PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company are not required to submit these appointments to a vote of the shareholders. If the shareholders of either PG&E Corporation or Pacific Gas and Electric Company should not ratify the appointment, the respective Audit Committee will investigate the reasons for rejection by the shareholders and the respective Board of Directors will reconsider the appointment.

The Boards of Directors of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company Unanimously Recommend a Vote FOR the Proposal to Ratify the Appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP.

16

Table of Contents

To Be Voted on by PG&E Corporation Shareholders Only

Item No. 3: Management Proposal Regarding a Proposed Amendment to PG&E Corporation’s Articles of Incorporation to Implement Enhancement of Simple Majority Voting

      At the 2001 annual meeting of PG&E Corporation, a majority of shares present and voting approved a shareholder proposal recommending that the Board of Directors amend the fair price provision in the Corporation’s Restated Articles of Incorporation to provide that a simple majority vote of shareholders be the only fair price provision requirement to effect a merger or business combination involving the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries. Because a majority vote of shareholders is already required under California law for significant corporate transactions involving the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries, the adoption of this recommendation would render the fair price provision unnecessary. Also, because the Corporation’s Shareholder Rights Plan already affords shareholders substantial protection against inadequate offers or coercive or unfair takeover tactics, the Board of Directors believes that the fair price provision no longer provides shareholders with any meaningful incremental protection.

      The Board of Directors therefore proposes to delete the fair price provision from the Corporation’s Restated Articles of Incorporation. This proposed amendment would not affect the constituency provision contained in the Corporation’s Restated Articles of Incorporation. A copy of Article Eighth of the Restated Articles of Incorporation of PG&E Corporation as proposed to be amended is attached to this Joint Proxy Statement as Appendix A.

      The proposed amendment to Article Eighth of the Restated Articles of Incorporation of PG&E Corporation is permitted under California law and the rules of the New York Stock Exchange, the principal exchange upon which PG&E Corporation’s common stock is listed and traded. The proposed amendment will not become effective until (1) it is approved by the affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding shares of PG&E Corporation common stock, and (2) a certificate of amendment is filed with the California Secretary of State.

The Board of Directors of PG&E Corporation Unanimously Recommends a Vote FOR the Foregoing Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of PG&E Corporation.

Item No. 4: Management Proposal Regarding Proposed Amendment to PG&E Corporation’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws to Reduce the Authorized Range of Directors and Delete from the Bylaws the Provision That Restates the Authorized Range of Directors as Set Forth in the Articles of Incorporation

      PG&E Corporation’s Restated Articles of Incorporation currently provide that the authorized number of directors shall be within a range of between seven and thirteen. PG&E Corporation’s Bylaws also list the range of the authorized number of directors as set forth in the Restated Articles of Incorporation, and fix the exact authorized number of directors. The current authorized number of directors to be elected at the 2002 annual meeting is nine.

      On September 20, 2001, PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company jointly filed a proposed Plan of Reorganization in U.S. Bankruptcy Court that would enable Pacific Gas and Electric Company to pay all valid creditor claims in full and emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The proposed Plan reorganizes Pacific Gas and Electric Company and PG&E Corporation into two separate stand-alone companies no longer affiliated with one another. The common shares of the reorganized Pacific Gas and Electric Company will be distributed to PG&E Corporation shareholders (spin-off).

      As part of the spin-off of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the current members of the PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company Boards of Directors will be divided between the entities. PG&E Corporation is expected to have five directors immediately following the spin-off. This number falls outside the range of directors currently authorized in the Restated Articles of Incorporation and set forth in the Bylaws.

      The Board of Directors of PG&E Corporation has unanimously approved (1) an amendment to the Corporation’s Restated Articles of Incorporation to provide that the Board of Directors shall consist of not less than

17

Table of Contents

      The proposed amendment to Article Third of the Restated Articles of Incorporation of PG&E Corporation is permitted under California law and the rules of the New York Stock Exchange, the principal exchange upon which PG&E Corporation’s common stock is listed and traded. The proposed amendment to the Corporation’s Restated Articles of Incorporation will not become effective until (1) it is approved by the affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding shares of PG&E Corporation common stock, (2) Pacific Gas and Electric Company becomes a stand-alone entity, as contemplated in the proposed Plan of Reorganization, and (3) a certificate of amendment is filed with the California Secretary of State. The proposed amendment to the Corporation’s Bylaws will not become effective until (1) it is approved by the affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding shares, and (2) the foregoing amendment to the Restated Articles of Incorporation becomes effective.

The Board of Directors of PG&E Corporation Unanimously Recommends a Vote FOR the Foregoing Amendments to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of PG&E Corporation.

18

Table of Contents

To Be Voted on by Pacific Gas and Electric Company Shareholders Only

       On September 20, 2001, PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company jointly filed a proposed Plan of Reorganization in U.S. Bankruptcy Court that would enable Pacific Gas and Electric Company to pay all valid creditor claims in full and emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The proposed Plan reorganizes Pacific Gas and Electric Company and PG&E Corporation into two separate stand-alone companies no longer affiliated with one another. The common shares of the reorganized Pacific Gas and Electric Company will be distributed to PG&E Corporation shareholders (spin-off).

      All amendments to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Restated Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws proposed in Items Nos. 5 through 9 will only become effective once the Company becomes a stand-alone entity, as contemplated in the Plan of Reorganization. Appendix B of this Joint Proxy Statement sets forth the Company’s Restated Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, as proposed to be amended in Items Nos. 5 through 9.

Item No. 5: Management Proposal Regarding a Proposed Amendment to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Articles of Incorporation to Establish a Classified Board of Directors

      Currently, the total number of directors constituting the Board of Directors of Pacific Gas and Electric Company is ten with each director serving a term of one year. As a consequence, shareholders must elect directors to fill the authorized positions at each annual meeting of shareholders.

      Pacific Gas and Electric Company proposes amending the Company’s Restated Articles of Incorporation to establish a classified board. If the authorized number of directors is nine or greater, the Board of Directors would be divided into three classes, with members of each class elected for staggered terms of three years. Each class would consist of one-third of the directors or as close an approximation as possible. If the authorized number of directors is reduced to between six and eight directors, the Board would be divided into two classes, with members of each class elected for staggered terms of two years.

      If the number of directors changes, the increase or decrease in the number of directors would be apportioned by the Board of Directors as provided for in the proposed amendment. In no event, however, may a decrease in the number of directors shorten the term of any incumbent director. Under California law, vacancies in the Board of Directors created by any resignation or death or by an increase in the size of the Board may be filled by the vote of the majority of the directors remaining in office.

      The establishment of a classified Board of Directors would help to ensure continuity and stability in the Board and in the policies adopted by the Board. Following establishment of a classified Board of Directors, only one-third of the directors would be subject to election each year (if the Board is divided into three classes) and, at any given time, two-thirds of the Board members would have had prior experience as directors of the Company. This would facilitate long-range planning and policy development, and promote the creation of long-term value for the Company’s shareholders.

      The proposed amendment may limit the ability of shareholders of the Company to change the composition of the Board of Directors by extending the time required to elect a majority of directors. Adoption of the proposed amendment also may make more difficult, or discourage, certain attempts to take over or acquire control of the Company, even where such action would be favorable to the Company’s shareholders or supported by a majority of shareholders. A principal intent of the proposal to establish a classified Board of Directors, however, is to encourage any person seeking to gain control of the Company to negotiate directly with the Board, thereby giving the Board added leverage in such negotiations to ensure the fairness of any such transaction to all shareholders.

      The proposed amendment to the Restated Articles of Incorporation of Pacific Gas and Electric Company is permitted under California law and the rules of the American Stock Exchange, the principal exchange upon which the Company’s preferred stock is listed and traded. The proposed amendment will not become effective until (1) it is approved by the affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding shares of Pacific Gas and Electric Company

19

Table of Contents

The Board of Directors of Pacific Gas and Electric Company Unanimously Recommends a Vote FOR the Foregoing Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Item No. 6: Management Proposal Regarding Proposed Amendments to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws to Reduce the Authorized Range of Directors and Transfer the Provision That Establishes the Authorized Range of Directors from the Bylaws to the Articles of Incorporation

      Currently, the Company’s Bylaws provide that the authorized maximum and minimum number of directors shall be within the range of nine to seventeen. The current authorized number of directors to be elected at the 2002 annual meeting is ten.

      As part of the spin-off of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the current members of PG&E Corporation’s and Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Boards of Directors will be divided between the entities, such that no directors will serve as director of both entities. Each entity is expected to have five directors immediately following the spin-off. This number falls outside the range of directors currently authorized in the Bylaws.

      The proposed amendments would (1) reduce the authorized range of directors from a range of nine to seventeen directors to a range of five to nine directors, (2) transfer the provisions that establish the minimum and maximum authorized number of directors from the Company’s Bylaws to its Restated Articles of Incorporation, and (3) change the exact number of directors specified in the Bylaws to five and clarify the permissible methods for fixing the exact number of directors within the range established by the Articles of Incorporation.

      Under California law, the Restated Articles of Incorporation may only be amended by the approval of a majority of the Board of Directors and a majority of the outstanding shares. Specifying the authorized range of directors in the Restated Articles of Incorporation would effectively limit a substantial shareholder’s ability to increase the size of the Board of Directors for the purpose of appointing additional directors to gain control of the Company. However, consistent with the other proposed amendments to the Company’s Restated Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, this proposed amendment is intended to encourage a takeover bidder to negotiate directly with the Board of Directors. This ensures the fair and equitable treatment of all shareholders.

      The proposed amendment to the Restated Articles of Incorporation of Pacific Gas and Electric Company is permitted under California law and the rules of the American Stock Exchange, the principal exchange upon which the Company’s preferred stock is listed and traded. The proposed amendment to the Company’s Articles of Incorporation will not become effective until (1) it is approved by the affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding shares of Pacific Gas and Electric Company voting stock, (2) the Company becomes a stand-alone entity, as contemplated in the Plan of Reorganization, and (3) a certificate of amendment is filed with the California Secretary of State. The proposed amendment to the Company’s Bylaws will not become effective until (1) it is approved by the affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding shares, and (2) the foregoing amendment to the Restated Articles of Incorporation becomes effective.

The Board of Directors of Pacific Gas and Electric Company Unanimously Recommends a Vote FOR the Foregoing Amendments to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Item No. 7: Management Proposal Regarding a Proposed Amendment to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws to Transfer the Provision That Prohibits Cumulative Voting in the Election of Directors from the Bylaws to the Articles of Incorporation

      Currently, Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Bylaws specify that no shareholder may cumulate his or her voting power in the election of directors. Under cumulative voting, the total number of votes that each shareholder may cast in an election for directors is determined by multiplying the number of directors to be elected by the number of votes to which the shareholder’s shares are entitled. Each shareholder may “cumulate” his or her votes by giving them all to one candidate, or may distribute his or her votes among as many candidates as the shareholder sees fit.

20

Table of Contents

      The proposed amendments will transfer the provision that prohibits cumulative voting from the Company’s Bylaws to its Restated Articles of Incorporation. The Board of Directors believes that cumulative voting gives a disproportionate and unfair weight to votes cast by a minority shareholder or shareholders. By prohibiting cumulative voting, the Company ensures that all directors are elected or removed only by a majority vote of shareholders voting in the election.

      A company’s bylaws may be amended by the board of directors or by a majority of the outstanding shares if permitted by California law. Under California law, the articles of incorporation may be amended only upon approval by both the company’s board of directors and the shareholders. If the prohibition on cumulative voting is moved from the Bylaws to the Restated Articles of Incorporation, shareholders could not initiate cumulative voting unless they first obtained the concurrence and cooperation of the Board of Directors.

      The proposed amendment to the Restated Articles of Incorporation of Pacific Gas and Electric Company is permitted under California law and the rules of the American Stock Exchange, the principal exchange upon which the Company’s preferred stock is listed and traded. The proposed amendment to the Company’s Articles of Incorporation will not become effective until (1) it is approved by the affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding shares of Pacific Gas and Electric Company voting stock, (2) the Company becomes a stand-alone entity, as contemplated in the Plan of Reorganization, and (3) a certificate of amendment is filed with the California Secretary of State. The proposed amendment to the Company’s Bylaws will not become effective until (1) it is approved by the affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding shares of Pacific Gas and Electric Company voting stock, and (2) the foregoing amendment to the Restated Articles of Incorporation becomes effective.

The Board of Directors of Pacific Gas and Electric Company Unanimously Recommends a Vote FOR the Foregoing Amendments to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Item No. 8: Management Proposal Regarding a Proposed Amendment to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Articles of Incorporation to Include Constituency Provisions

      Pacific Gas and Electric Company proposes amending the Company’s Restated Articles of Incorporation to enumerate factors that the Board of Directors may consider in determining what is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders when evaluating a business combination involving the Company. The proposed “constituency provision” would authorize the Board of Directors, when evaluating certain third-party business combination proposals or offers, to give due consideration to all factors it may consider relevant. Such factors could include, without limitation, (1) the adequacy of the consideration offered, (2) the financial and managerial resources and future prospects of the acquirer, and (3) the legal, economic, environmental, regulatory, and social effects of the proposed transaction on the Company’s and its subsidiaries’ employees, customers, suppliers, and other affected persons and entities, and on the communities and geographic areas in which the Company and its subsidiaries provide utility service or are located, and in particular, the effect on the Company’s and its subsidiaries’ ability to safely and reliably meet any public utility obligations at reasonable rates. Such a constituency provision is included in the Restated Articles of Incorporation of PG&E Corporation, the Company’s parent.

      When deciding whether to enter into a merger, a sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Company, or other similar transaction, the principal consideration of a board of directors is the interests of shareholders. Under California law, it is not entirely clear how far a board may go in considering other factors in evaluating such transactions. Although the manner and extent to which a matter may affect shareholders is a vital element in any consideration of any business combination involving the Company, the impact upon other constituencies that necessarily influence the success of the Company (and hence benefit the shareholders) also is a legitimate factor to consider. The Board of Directors should be authorized to consider other constituencies in its determination of what is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders.

      The constituency provision may make more difficult, or discourage, certain attempts to take over or acquire control of the Company, even where such action would be favorable to the Company’s shareholders or supported by a majority of shareholders. However, the provision would allow the Board of Directors to take into account the effects of a takeover proposal on a broad number of constituencies and to consider any potential adverse effect in determining whether to accept or reject the proposal.

      The proposed amendment to the Restated Articles of Incorporation of Pacific Gas and Electric Company is permitted under California law and the rules of the American Stock Exchange, the principal exchange upon which

21

Table of Contents

The Board of Directors of Pacific Gas and Electric Company Unanimously Recommends a Vote FOR the Foregoing Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Item No. 9: Management Proposal Regarding a Proposed Amendment to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Articles of Incorporation to Require That Shareholder Action Be Taken at an Annual or Special Meeting

      Currently, California law provides that any action which may be taken at any annual or special meeting of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s shareholders may be taken without a meeting and without prior notice, if a written consent setting forth such action is signed by shareholders having at least the minimum number of votes required by California law.

      Pacific Gas and Electric Company proposes amending the Company’s Restated Articles of Incorporation to require that all shareholder action be taken at a duly called annual meeting or special meeting of shareholders and that no action may be taken by the written consent of the shareholders. As currently provided in the Company’s Bylaws, a special meeting of shareholders may be called by the Secretary or an Assistant Secretary upon the written request of holders of not less than 10 percent of the votes entitled to be cast at that meeting.

      The proposed amendment would afford all shareholders an equal opportunity to participate in a meeting where shareholder action is proposed to be taken. The proposal also would prevent sudden shareholder action to remove the entire Board of Directors and would assist the Board in preserving its ability to negotiate directly with a potential acquirer on behalf of the Company’s shareholders, thus fostering the fair and equitable treatment of all shareholders. However, this also may make more difficult, or discourage, certain attempts to takeover or gain control of the Company, even where such action would be favorable to the Company’s shareholders or supported by a majority of shareholders.

      The proposed amendment to the Restated Articles of Incorporation of Pacific Gas and Electric Company is permitted under California law and the rules of the American Stock Exchange, the principal exchange upon which the Company’s preferred stock is listed and traded. The proposed amendment will not become effective until (1) it is approved by the affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding shares of Pacific Gas and Electric Company voting stock, (2) the Company becomes a stand-alone entity, as contemplated in the Plan of Reorganization, and (3) a certificate of amendment is filed with the California Secretary of State.

The Board of Directors of Pacific Gas and Electric Company Unanimously Recommends a Vote FOR the Foregoing Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

22

Table of Contents

To Be Voted on by PG&E Corporation Shareholders Only

Item No. 10: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Independent Directors

      Mr. Ray T. Chevedden, 5965 South Citrus Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90043, holder of 3,000 shares of PG&E Corporation common stock, has given notice of his intention to present the following proposal for action at the PG&E Corporation annual meeting:

“10 — INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS on KEY COMMITTEES

                Resolved:

23

Table of Contents

      For improved accountability:

INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS ON KEY COMMITTEES

The Board of Directors of PG&E Corporation Recommends a Vote AGAINST This Proposal.

      The Board of Directors believes this proposal is unnecessary. The PG&E Corporation Audit Committee and Nominating and Compensation Committee are each composed entirely of independent directors as defined in the Corporation’s corporate governance guidelines. Independent directors are defined in the guidelines as directors who are neither (1) current nor former employees of, or consultants to, PG&E Corporation or its subsidiaries, nor (2) current nor former officers or employees of any other corporation on whose board of directors any officer of PG&E Corporation serves as a member. Further, another requirement of the guidelines specifies that 75 percent of the Board be composed of directors who are neither current nor former officers of PG&E Corporation or any of its subsidiaries. The Corporation is in compliance with this requirement.

      The PG&E Corporation Board of Directors believes that the composition of its Audit Committee and its Nominating and Compensation Committee, each consisting solely of independent directors, and the presence of a majority of independent directors on the Board pursuant to the Board’s corporate governance policies ensure independent oversight of management.

      For these reasons, the PG&E Corporation Board of Directors unanimously recommends that shareholders vote AGAINST this proposal.

Item No. 11: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plan)

      Mr. Chris Rossi, P.O. Box 249, Boonville, California 95415, holder of 1,000 shares of PG&E Corporation common stock, has given notice of his intention to present the following proposal for action at the PG&E Corporation annual meeting:

“11 — SHAREHOLDER VOTE ON POISON PILLS

24

Table of Contents

SHAREHOLDER VOTE ON POISON PILLS

The Board of Directors of PG&E Corporation Recommends a Vote AGAINST This Proposal.

      The Board of Directors adopted the Corporation’s Shareholder Rights Plan on December 15, 2000, in order to protect the Corporation’s shareholders in the event the Corporation is confronted with an inadequate offer or with coercive or unfair takeover tactics. Plans similar to the Corporation’s Shareholder Rights Plan have been adopted by more than 2,000 U.S. corporations, including about half of the Fortune 500 companies and an increasing number of publicly traded utilities. The Board considers the Shareholder Rights Plan to be invaluable in protecting the right of shareholders to realize the full value of their investment in the Corporation.

      The Shareholder Rights Plan is designed to safeguard shareholders from abusive tactics that have been used by certain bidders against other companies and that the Board of Directors believes are not in the best interest of the Corporation’s shareholders. These tactics may unfairly pressure shareholders, squeeze them out of their investment without giving them any real choice, and deprive them of the full value of their shares.

      These points were underscored in a 1997 study prepared by the nationally recognized proxy solicitation and investor relations firm, Georgeson & Company, Inc. This study concluded that companies with shareholder rights plans received higher premiums than companies without shareholder rights plans, and that the presence of a shareholder rights plan did not reduce the likelihood of takeovers.

      For these reasons, the PG&E Corporation Board of Directors unanimously recommends that shareholders vote AGAINST this proposal.

25

Table of Contents

Item No. 12: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Auditor Services

      The United Brotherhood of Carpenters on behalf of the Massachusetts State Carpenters Pension Fund, 350 Fordham Road, Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887, beneficial owner of 6,400 shares of PG&E Corporation common stock, has given notice of its intention to present the following proposal for action at the PG&E Corporation annual meeting:

The Board of Directors of PG&E Corporation Recommends a Vote AGAINST This Proposal.

      The Board of Directors believes in the importance of auditor independence. However, this proposal is too extreme because it would prohibit the Corporation from obtaining non-audit services from its independent auditor without regard to the nature of those services.

      Numerous safeguards and policies oversee non-audit relationships between PG&E Corporation and its independent auditor. In June 2000, the Corporation adopted a policy that only permits engaging the independent

26

Table of Contents

      Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations, the independent auditor is prohibited from providing nine specific types of non-audit services, such as certain bookkeeping and financial information systems design and implementation services, which raise independence issues. The Corporation does not obtain these services from its independent auditor. The SEC specifically stated that it does not seek to discourage the development of non-audit services that do not raise independence issues. Instead, the rules were designed to restrict non-audit services only to the extent necessary to protect the integrity and independence of the audit function. In fact, certain services relating to financings, regulatory filings, and accounting consultations should be performed only by the Corporation’s independent auditor, even though those services do not fall within the SEC’s definition of audit fees for proxy disclosure purposes.

      The discretion to determine the best allocation of tasks among accounting and other firms is an essential component of the ability of the Board and the Audit Committee to discharge their responsibilities to the Corporation and its shareholders. We do not believe that the retention of this discretion undermines in any way the Corporation’s ability to monitor and ensure the independence of our independent auditor. Corporation officers and the Audit Committee continually monitor and evaluate the performance of the Corporation’s independent auditor in both its audit services and its non-audit services, the fees paid for all such services, and the compatibility of the non-audit services with the maintenance of the firm’s independence.

      The Board of Directors believes that the safeguards implemented by the Corporation protect the independence of the audit function and that preventing the independent auditor from performing any non-audit services would result in inefficiencies and increased costs to the Corporation without providing any additional protection.

      For these reasons, the PG&E Corporation Board of Directors unanimously recommends that shareholders vote AGAINST this proposal.

Item No. 13: Shareholder Proposal Regarding the Board of Directors’ Role

      The Laborers’ District Council of Western Pennsylvania Pension Fund, 1109 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219, beneficial owner of 4,700 shares of PG&E Corporation common stock, has given notice of its intention to present the following proposal for action at the PG&E Corporation annual meeting:

27

Table of Contents

The Board of Directors of PG&E Corporation Recommends a Vote AGAINST This Proposal.

      The Board of Directors agrees that it plays a vital role in the development and monitoring of the Corporation’s long-term strategic plan. The Board supports providing shareholders with information as described in this proposal. Accordingly, the Corporation contacted the proponent to discuss how this information should be disclosed to shareholders. Specifically, we proposed that the proxy statement provided to shareholders each year in connection with the Corporation’s annual meeting include a description of the respective roles of the Corporation’s Finance Committee and Board of Directors in developing and monitoring the strategic plan for the Corporation and its subsidiaries. We were not able to reach agreement with the proponent as to our proposed disclosure.

      Although the Corporation’s proposed disclosure apparently does not meet all of the proponent’s requirements, the Corporation has added this disclosure to the Joint Proxy Statement in order to make this information available to all our shareholders. This information is presented in the discussion under “Information Regarding the Board of Directors of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company — Board Committees — Finance Committee” on pages 9-10 of the Joint Proxy Statement.

      The Corporation believes that its augmented discussion of the Board’s role in the development and monitoring of strategic planning provides the disclosure requested in this shareholder proposal and addresses the concerns raised by the proponent. Thus, we believe that no additional disclosure is necessary to provide shareholders with information enabling them to understand how the members of the Board participate in formulating corporate strategy.

      For this reason, the PG&E Corporation Board of Directors unanimously recommends that shareholders vote AGAINST this proposal.

Item No. 14: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Radioactive Wastes

      Mr. Ron Rattner, 1998 Broadway Street, #1204, San Francisco, California 94109, beneficial owner of 1,975 shares of PG&E Corporation common stock, has given notice of his intention to present the following proposal for action at the PG&E Corporation annual meeting:

“RADIOACTIVE WASTES: RISK REDUCTION POLICY

28

Table of Contents

The Board of Directors of PG&E Corporation Recommends a Vote AGAINST This Proposal.

      The Board of Directors believes this proposal is unnecessary. Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon) is in compliance with detailed regulations of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which has established comprehensive requirements including the monitoring and review of the safety, radiological, and environmental aspects of these facilities, the comprehensive and mandatory quality controls used in the operation of the plant, and the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel. These regulations also require that nuclear power plants take adequate measures to protect the public from the possibility of exposure to radioactive release caused by acts of sabotage.

      Pacific Gas and Electric Company has applied to the NRC for a license to construct and use “dry” steel and concrete storage containers for spent fuel storage after the existing spent fuel pools capacity is depleted. Pacific Gas and Electric Company will comply with NRC requirements regarding use of these containers, including requirements that the containers be designed to withstand earthquakes and other natural disasters. Currently there is no transportation of spent fuel to or from Diablo Canyon and no existing plans to commence such transportation in the future. However, any such transportation would be subject to a number of NRC procedures, specifications, and regulations designed to protect containers transporting used nuclear fuel from attack as well as accident.

      For these reasons, the PG&E Corporation Board of Directors unanimously recommends that shareholders vote AGAINST this proposal.

29

Table of Contents

Item No. 15: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Confidential Voting

      Mr. Simon Levine, 960 Shorepoint Court, No. 306, Alameda, California 94501, holder of 5,000 shares of PG&E Corporation common stock, has given notice of his intention to present the following proposal for action at the PG&E Corporation annual meeting:

“15 — FREE AND CONFIDENTIAL SHAREHOLDER VOTING

CONFIDENTIAL SHAREHOLDER VOTING

The Board of Directors of PG&E Corporation Recommends a Vote AGAINST This Proposal.

      PG&E Corporation adopted a formal confidential voting policy in 2000. It states that the vote of any shareholder will not be revealed to anyone other than a non-employee proxy tabulator or an independent

30

Table of Contents

      The Board of Directors believes that the introduction of the additional procedural element of a bylaw does not change the essential objective of the proposal, that of requiring confidential voting. This proposal is unnecessary since confidential voting has already been adopted by PG&E Corporation.

      For this reason, the PG&E Corporation Board of Directors unanimously recommends that shareholders vote AGAINST this proposal.

31

Table of Contents

Nominating and Compensation Committee Report on Compensation

       The Nominating and Compensation Committee of the PG&E Corporation Board of Directors (Committee) is responsible for overseeing and establishing executive compensation policies for PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries, including Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The Committee also oversees the PG&E Corporation Long-Term Incentive Program and other employee benefit plans.

      This report relates to the compensation paid to executive officers of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001. Compensation for the Chief Executive Officers of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company is approved by their respective Board of Directors based on the recommendation of the Committee, which is composed of independent non-employee directors. In establishing the 2001 compensation of the Chief Executive Officers of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, each Board of Directors ratified the recommendations of the Committee. Compensation for all other PG&E Corporation and subsidiary officers is approved by the Committee, except that the Committee has delegated to the PG&E Corporation Chief Executive Officer the authority to approve compensation for certain officers of PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries.

      The Committee established compensation programs for 2001 to meet four objectives:

      To meet its goal of paying compensation that is competitive with similar companies in 2001, the Committee selected a group consisting of 11 other major energy companies (comparator group). These companies were selected by the Committee because they are comparable to PG&E Corporation in size and because their approach to compensation emphasizes long-term incentives. All of the companies in the comparator group were included in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Stock Index.

      For 2001, the Committee established the following specific compensation targets for officers:

      In evaluating compensation program alternatives, the Committee considers the potential impact on PG&E Corporation of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 162(m) eliminates the deductibility of compensation over $1 million paid to the five highest paid executive officers of public corporations, excluding “performance-based compensation.” Compensation programs generally will qualify as performance-based if (1) the performance targets are pre-established objective standards, (2) the programs have been approved by shareholders, and (3) there is no discretion to modify or alter payments after the performance targets have been established for the year.

      To the extent consistent with the Committee’s overall policy of maintaining a competitive, performance-based compensation program, it is PG&E Corporation’s intent to maintain the tax deductibility of the compensation which it pays. The Committee endeavors to maximize deductibility of compensation under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code to the extent practicable while maintaining competitive compensation. However, tax consequences, including but not limited to tax deductibility, are subject to many factors (such as changes in the

32

Table of Contents

Principal Components of Compensation

Base Salary

PG&E Corporation Base Salary

      PG&E Corporation’s executive salaries are reviewed annually by the Committee based on (1) the results achieved by each individual, (2) expected corporate financial performance, measured by combined earnings per share, dividends, and stock price performance, and (3) changes in the average salaries paid to comparable executives by companies in the comparator group.

      In setting the 2001 salary levels for PG&E Corporation’s executive officers, the Committee’s objective was that the overall average of the salaries paid to all officers as a group (including the Chief Executive Officer) should be approximately equal to the target competitive level.

      Robert D. Glynn, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of PG&E Corporation, received an annual base salary of $900,000 in 2001. The salary level for Mr. Glynn is comparable to the average salary of chief executive officers of the 11 companies in the comparator group. The overall average of the base salaries received by all PG&E Corporation officers (including Mr. Glynn) for 2001 was comparable to the average salary paid to all officers of the comparator group.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Base Salary

      Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s executive salaries are reviewed annually by the Committee based on (1) the results achieved by each individual, (2) expected corporate financial performance, measured by combined earnings per share, dividends, and stock price performance, and (3) changes in the average salaries paid to comparable executives by companies in the comparator group.

      In setting the 2001 salary levels for Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s executive officers, the Committee’s objective was that the overall average of the salaries paid to all officers as a group (including the Chief Executive Officer) should be approximately equal to the target competitive level.

      Gordon R. Smith, Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, received an annual base salary of $630,000 in 2001. The salary level for Mr. Smith is comparable to the average salary of senior executives in comparable positions in the 11 companies in the comparator group. The overall average of the base salaries received by all Pacific Gas and Electric Company officers (including Mr. Smith) for 2001 was comparable to the average salary paid to all officers of the comparator group.

Short-Term Incentives

PG&E Corporation Annual Incentive

      The PG&E Corporation Short-Term Incentive Plan for 2001 was designed to provide annual incentives to all executive officers based largely on PG&E Corporation’s success in meeting the 2001 corporate operating earnings per share objective. This objective emphasizes the impact of on-going results of operations by eliminating the effect of extraordinary gains or losses. Annual incentives for executive officers with operating responsibility for the Corporation’s major lines of business, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and PG&E National Energy Group, are based on a combination of corporate operating earnings and the results of their line of business.

      At the beginning of the year, target awards are set based on each executive’s responsibilities and salary level. Final awards are determined by the Committee and may range from zero to twice the target, depending on the

33

Table of Contents

      In 2001, PG&E Corporation’s corporate operating earnings per share were $3.02. The majority of executive officers received Short-Term Incentive Plan awards equal to 131 percent of their total target awards.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Annual Incentive

      The Pacific Gas and Electric Company Short-Term Incentive Plan for 2001 was designed to provide annual incentives to all executive officers based on meeting financial, service, and other measures of the company, as well as those of specific business units and departments.

      At the beginning of the year, target awards are set based on each executive’s responsibilities and salary level. Final awards are determined by the Committee and may range from zero to twice the target, depending on the extent to which the stated objectives are achieved. The Committee has discretion to modify or eliminate awards.

      In 2001, Pacific Gas and Electric Company executive officers received Short-Term Incentive Plan awards that ranged from 135 percent to 152 percent of their total target awards.

Stock Options in Lieu of Short-Term Incentive Plan Awards

      In 1998, to further increase the officers’ ability to align their individual economic interests with those of the Corporation and its shareholders, the Committee adopted a program whereby eligible officers could elect to convert up to 50 percent of the award they otherwise would be entitled to receive under their respective Short-Term Incentive Plan, and instead receive stock options under the PG&E Corporation Stock Option Plan described below.

Long-Term Incentives

      PG&E Corporation Long-Term Incentive Program. The PG&E Corporation Long-Term Incentive Program permits various stock-based incentive awards to be granted to executive officers and other employees of the Corporation and its subsidiaries. The Stock Option Plan and the Performance Unit Plan (each of which is a component of the Long-Term Incentive Program) provide incentives based on PG&E Corporation’s financial performance over time.

      PG&E Corporation Stock Option Plan. The Stock Option Plan provides incentives based on PG&E Corporation’s ability to sustain financial performance over a 3- to 10-year period. Under the Plan, officers, and other key employees of PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries receive stock options based on their responsibilities and position. These options allow them to purchase a certain number of shares of PG&E Corporation common stock at the market price on the date of grant. Generally, optionees must hold the options for at least two full years and exercise them within 10 years. Options granted in lieu of Short-Term Incentive Plan awards, as discussed above, will be vested immediately, although the options may not be exercised for at least one year after the date of grant. PG&E Corporation does not re-price options once they have been granted.

      At the Committee’s discretion, stock options may be granted with tandem “stock appreciation rights” which have vesting periods and exercise guidelines that are similar to the options. These rights allow option-holders to surrender their options when they have vested and receive a cash payment equal to the difference between the exercise price and the current market price. No stock appreciation rights have been granted since 1991.

      Stock options also may be granted with or without tandem “dividend equivalents” which provide for credits to be made to a dividend equivalent account equal to the current common stock dividend multiplied by the recipient’s unexercised options. For options granted with dividend equivalents, option-holders are entitled to receive the amounts accumulated in their dividend equivalent account only when, and to the extent that, the underlying options or stock appreciation rights are exercised. If a stock appreciation right is exercised, the holder of the right receives the associated dividend equivalent only if the stock price has appreciated by at least 5 percent per year from the date of grant or by at least 25 percent if the options have been held for more than five years. In June 1997, the Committee adopted the policy that future stock option grants will not include dividend equivalents, and no such grants with dividend equivalents have been made since that time.

      The size of the stock option grants for each executive officer of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company in 2001 was determined by the Committee based on the Committee’s objectives of tying a substantial component of target total compensation directly to financial performance for shareholders and satisfying

34

Table of Contents

      PG&E Corporation Performance Unit Plan. The Performance Unit Plan provides incentives based on PG&E Corporation’s ability to sustain superior total returns for shareholders (dividends plus stock price appreciation) over a three-year period. Under the Plan, officers of PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries receive performance units reflecting their level of responsibility. One-third of the units vest each year. At the end of each year, the number of vested performance units is increased or decreased based on PG&E Corporation’s three-year total return for shareholders (dividends plus stock price appreciation) as ranked against a group of comparator companies. Each officer receives an incentive payment equal to the final number of vested units multiplied by the average market price of PG&E Corporation common stock during the 30 calendar day period prior to the end of the year. Each time a cash dividend is declared on PG&E Corporation common stock, an amount equal to the cash dividend per share multiplied by the number of units held by a recipient will be accrued on behalf of the recipient and, at the end of the year, the amount of accrued dividend equivalents will be increased or decreased by the same percentage used to increase or decrease the recipient’s number of vested performance units for the year.

      In determining Performance Unit Plan results for units granted in 1999, PG&E Corporation’s performance is compared with that of the 49 other largest energy-based companies in the nation. Current year performance is weighted at 60 percent, the performance in the prior year at 25 percent, and the performance in the year before that at 15 percent. For units granted in 2000 and 2001, PG&E Corporation’s performance is compared with that of a group of 11 energy companies selected from the Dow Jones Utility Index and is based on a two-year cumulative total shareholder return rather than on a weighted annual total shareholder return. These changes to the methodology for determining results provide a better gauge of sustained multi-year performance and focus on performance relative to select industry peers.

      For the three years ended December 31, 2001, PG&E Corporation’s total shareholder return had a weighted average ranking of 32nd among the 50 largest energy-based companies in the nation. Based on these rankings, officers received awards for 2001 performance that were based on 58 percent of vested units granted in 1999. For the two years ended December 31, 2001, PG&E Corporation’s total shareholder return had a cumulative ranking of 10th among the 12 company comparator group. Based on these rankings, officers received no payments under the Plan for 2001 performance, based on vested units granted in 2000 and 2001.

      Executive Stock Ownership Program. Effective January 1, 1998, the Committee adopted the Executive Stock Ownership Program which contains certain stock ownership targets for executives to be achieved within five years after becoming an executive officer. The targets are set as a multiple of the executive’s base salary and vary according to the executive’s level of responsibility within the Corporation. The executive stock ownership targets are as follows: three times base salary for the Chief Executive Officer of PG&E Corporation; two times base salary for heads of the Corporation’s lines of business, the Chief Financial Officer, and the General Counsel of PG&E Corporation; and one and one-half times base salary for the Senior Vice Presidents of PG&E Corporation and the Senior Vice Presidents of Pacific Gas and Electric Company. To the extent an executive officer achieves and maintains the stock ownership targets within the first three years of becoming an executive officer, the executive officer will be entitled to receive additional common stock equivalents (called Special Incentive Stock Ownership Premiums or SISOPs) to be credited to the deferred compensation portion of his or her Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan account balance. The additional common stock equivalents vest three years after the date of grant, subject to accelerated vesting in accordance with the Officer Severance Policy and upon a change in control of the Corporation. The additional common stock equivalents are subject to forfeiture if the executive fails to maintain the applicable stock ownership target.

Retention Mechanisms

      In an effort to retain certain key personnel to ensure a continued workforce of experienced and knowledgeable employees in light of the energy crisis, bankruptcy proceedings, and the proposed Plan of Reorganization, PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company implemented various retention mechanisms in 2001. The Management Retention Program provides key employees of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company with financial incentives to continue their employment through certain key dates. The Management Retention Program has been approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (in which Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code) and is supported by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, which represents the unsecured creditors in the Company’s bankruptcy case. The Special Senior Executive

35

Table of Contents

Benefits

      Benefit plans are designed to meet the individual needs of PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries and to permit portability of benefits among the Corporation and its subsidiaries. Tax-deferred savings arrangements provide employees with an opportunity to supplement their retirement income through employee and matching contributions by PG&E Corporation or one of its subsidiaries. PG&E Corporation also provides excess retirement benefits for its executive officers based on salary and incentive compensation.

      The defined contribution benefit plans of PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries permit participants in those plans to direct the investment of their contributions into PG&E Corporation common stock, providing another opportunity for executive officers to increase their proprietary interest in PG&E Corporation. The PG&E Corporation Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan also permits the executives who participate in the plan to direct that the return on their deferred compensation be tied directly to the performance of PG&E Corporation common stock.

Summary

      We, the members of the Nominating and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of PG&E Corporation, believe that the compensation programs of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company are successful in attracting and retaining qualified employees and in tying compensation directly to performance for shareholders and service to customers. We will continue to monitor closely the effectiveness and appropriateness of each of the components of compensation to reflect changes in the business environment of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

March 13, 2002

Nominating and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of PG&E Corporation

Carl E. Reichardt, Chair

36

Table of Contents

Summary Compensation Table

       [This table summarizes the principal components of compensation paid to the Chief Executive Officers and the other most highly compensated executive officers of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company during the past year.]

37

Table of Contents

38

Table of Contents

Option/ SAR Grants in 2001

[This table summarizes the distribution and the terms and conditions of stock options granted to the executive officers named in the Summary Compensation Table during the past year.]