Pacific Gas & Electric (PCG)

Complaints Filed by the California Attorney General and the City and County of San Francisco

At a case management conference held on March 18, 2005, the San Francisco Superior Court, or Superior Court, issued its final ruling on rejecting the “per victim” and “per [customer] bill” standards advocated by the plaintiffs to be applied in calculating the number of alleged violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, or Section 17200.  The Superior Court found that the appropriate standard to be applied was the “per act” test, and that the acts alleged to violate Section 17200 are “transfers of assets to [PG&E Corporation] from its utility subsidiary.”  Such asset transfers were effected primarily through the Utility’s payment of dividends to PG&E Corporation and through share repurchases from the date of PG&E Corporation’s formation on January 1, 1997, through the end of 2000, when dividends were last paid.

Also on March 18, the Superior Court ordered plaintiffs to provide a list of the transfers that they claim are unlawful, as well as the basis for their claim with respect to each transfer, at the next case management conference scheduled for May 10, 2005.

For more information regarding these cases, see “Part I, Item 3: Legal Proceedings” of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s combined 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K.