The Boards of Directors of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the “Utility”) (each a “Board” and together, the “Boards”) are soliciting proxies for use at the companies’ annual meetings of shareholders, including any adjournments or postponements.

This Joint Proxy Statement describes certain matters that management expects will be voted on at the annual meetings, gives you information about PG&E Corporation and the Utility and their respective Boards and management, and provides general information about the voting process and attendance at the annual meetings.

A Notice of Annual Meeting and Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (“Notice”) or a copy of the Joint Proxy Statement, a proxy card, and the 2009 Annual Report (“Annual Report”) were mailed to shareholders beginning on or about March 31, 2010. The materials were sent to anyone who owned shares of common stock of PG&E Corporation and/or shares of preferred stock of the Utility at the close of business on March 15, 2010. This date is the record date set by the Boards to determine which shareholders may vote at the annual meetings.

The proxy materials are available on the website referenced in the Notice. For shareholders who prefer to access the proxy materials in printed form, the Notice also contains instructions on how to request a printed set of proxy materials by mail.

Questions and Answers

How do I vote?

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

If you submit your proxy over the Internet or by telephone, your vote must be received by 6:00 a.m., Eastern time, on Wednesday, May 12, 2010. These Internet and telephone voting procedures comply with California law. If you submit your proxy by mail, your vote must be received by 10:00 a.m., Pacific time, on Wednesday, May 12, 2010.

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

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

The Utility’s shareholders will be voting on the following items:

What vote is required to approve each item?

A majority voting standard applies to the election of each director nominee and to the approval of each other item described in this Joint Proxy Statement. A director nominee will be elected, and a proposal will be approved, if a majority of the shares represented and voting approve that nominee’s election or the proposal. Abstentions will not be considered in determining whether a majority of the shares represented and voting have elected a director nominee or approved a proposal. Similarly, any broker non-votes (see definition below) that occur with respect to a proposal will not be considered in determining whether a majority of the shares represented and voting have approved that proposal. As explained below, broker non-votes do not apply to the ratification of the appointment of the independent registered public accounting firm or the advisory vote on executive compensation.

In addition, the shares voting affirmatively must equal at least a majority of the required quorum. This means that the shares voting affirmatively must be greater than 25 percent of the outstanding shares entitled to vote. For this purpose, abstentions could prevent the election of a director nominee or the approval of a proposal, and broker non-votes that occur with respect to director elections or a proposal could prevent the election of a nominee or approval of a proposal, if the number of shares voting affirmatively do not constitute a majority of the required quorum.

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 holder 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 your broker or other registered holder with instructions as to how you want your shares to be voted. Under the rules of the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), if you fail to provide your broker with voting instructions, your broker can use its discretion to vote your shares on certain routine matters, like the ratification of the appointment of the independent registered public accounting firm and the advisory vote on executive compensation. However, your broker may not use its discretion to vote your shares on certain other matters, like director elections and shareholder proposals. When a broker votes your shares on routine matters but is unable to vote your shares on other matters because you have failed to provide instructions, a “broker non-vote” occurs with respect to these other matters.

What shares am I entitled to vote?

If you are a PG&E Corporation registered shareholder, you are entitled to vote all the shares of PG&E Corporation common stock in your account as of the close of business on March 15, 2010, including shares in the PG&E Corporation Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan. If you are a Utility registered shareholder, you are entitled to vote all the shares of Utility preferred stock in your account as of the record date.

If you are a registered shareholder of both PG&E Corporation common stock and Utility preferred stock, you are entitled to vote separately for each company. If you receive more than one copy of the Notice or more than one proxy card for either company, it means that your shares are held in more than one account. You should vote the shares in all of your accounts.

How many copies of the Joint Proxy Statement and Annual Report will I receive?

If you are a registered shareholder of PG&E Corporation common stock and/or Utility preferred stock, for each account you will receive one Notice, unless you have requested paper copies of the proxy materials, in which case you will receive one Joint Proxy Statement, a proxy card, and one Annual Report.

If you are a beneficial owner of PG&E Corporation common stock and/or Utility preferred stock and you receive your proxy materials through Broadridge Investor Communication Solutions (“Broadridge”), and there are multiple beneficial owners at the same address, you may receive fewer Notices or fewer paper copies of the Joint Proxy Statement and the Annual Report than the number of beneficial owners at that address. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) rules permit Broadridge to deliver only one Joint Proxy Statement and one 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 Broadridge and (1) you currently receive only one copy of the proxy materials at a shared address but you wish to receive an additional copy of this Joint Proxy Statement and the Annual Report, or any future proxy statement or annual report, or (2) you share an address with other beneficial owners who also receive their separate proxy materials through Broadridge and you wish to request delivery of a single copy of the annual report or the proxy statement to the shared address in the future, please contact the office of the Corporate Secretary of PG&E Corporation or Pacific Gas and Electric Company, as appropriate, at One Market, Spear Tower, Suite 2400, San Francisco, CA 94105, or call 1-415-267-7070.

Are proxy materials for the annual meetings available on-line?

Yes. You can go on-line at www.pgecorp.com/investors/financial_reports/ to access this Joint Proxy Statement and the Annual Report.

You also can vote your proxy on-line, as noted on page 1 of this Joint Proxy Statement. Specific voting instructions also are included on the Notice and the proxy card.

What if I return my proxy but I do not specify how I want my shares voted?

The PG&E Corporation proxyholders will vote those shares in accordance with the PG&E Corporation Board’s recommendations, which are as follows: “For” Items 1, 2, 3, and 4, and “Against” Items 5 through 9. The Utility’s proxyholders will vote those

shares in accordance with the Utility Board’s recommendations which are “For” Items 1, 2, and 3.

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?

You can change your proxy vote or revoke your proxy any time before it is exercised by doing one of the following before the applicable deadline: (1) returning a signed proxy card with a later date, (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 annual meetings.

Is my vote confidential?

PG&E Corporation and the Utility each have adopted a confidential voting policy under which shareholder votes are revealed only 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?

Corporate Election Services will act as the proxy tabulators and the inspectors of election for the 2010 annual meetings. Corporate Election Services is independent of PG&E Corporation and the Utility and the companies’ respective directors, officers, and employees.

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

As of the record date, there were [XXX,XXX,XXX] shares of PG&E Corporation common stock, without par value, outstanding and entitled to vote. Each share is entitled to one vote.

As of the record date, there were [XX,XXX,XXX] shares of Utility preferred stock, $25 par value, and

[XXX,XXX,XXX] shares of Utility common stock, $5 par value, outstanding and entitled to vote. Each share is entitled to one vote.

A quorum is necessary to conduct business at each annual meeting. A majority of the shares entitled to vote at each meeting must be represented at the meeting in person or by proxy to constitute a quorum. Abstentions and broker non-votes will be considered in determining whether a quorum is present at each meeting.

May I attend the annual meetings?

All shareholders of record as of the record date may attend the annual meetings of PG&E Corporation and the Utility. You must have an admission ticket to attend the annual meetings. Also, shareholders will be asked to present valid photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport, before being admitted to the meetings.

If you are a registered shareholder, your Notice will be your admission ticket. Please bring the Notice to the annual 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 an admission ticket to you. 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 Utility stock as of the record date.

May I bring a guest to the annual meetings?

Each registered shareholder or beneficial owner may bring up to a total of three of the following individuals to the annual meetings: (1) a spouse or domestic partner, (2) legal proxies, (3) qualified representatives presenting the shareholder’s proposal, or (4) financial or legal advisors.

Shareholders must provide advance written notice to the Corporate Secretary if they intend to bring any legal proxy, qualified representative, or advisor to the annual meetings. The notice must include the name and address of the legal proxy, representative, or advisor, and must be received at the principal executive office of the appropriate company

by 5:00 p.m., Pacific time, on May 5, 2010, in order to allow enough time for the issuance of additional admission tickets. We recommend that shareholders send their notice by a method that allows them to determine when the notice was received at the principal executive office of the appropriate company.

How will the annual meetings be conducted?

The Chairman of the Board (“Chairman”) of PG&E Corporation will preside over the meetings and make any and all determinations regarding the conduct of the meetings.

All items of business described in this Joint Proxy Statement will be deemed presented at the annual meetings.

For each shareholder proposal, a qualified representative will have an opportunity to discuss that item. Other shareholders will have an opportunity to raise other comments and questions regarding that proposal.

There will be a general question and answer period. Questions and comments should pertain to corporate performance, items for consideration at the annual meetings, or other matters of interest to shareholders generally. The meeting is not a forum to present general economic, political, or other views that are not directly related to the business of PG&E Corporation or the Utility.

Shareholders will be recognized on a rotating basis. If you wish to speak, please raise your hand and wait to be recognized. When you are called upon, please direct your questions and comments to the company officer chairing the meetings. Each person called upon during the meetings will have a maximum of three minutes on any one question or comment.

Can shareholders introduce other proposals (including director nominations) during the annual meetings?

Each company’s Bylaws require advance written notice of the intention to make a shareholder proposal or bring other matters for action (including introducing nominees for director) at an annual meeting. The notice for proposals and other matters to be considered by shareholders at the 2010 annual

meetings must have been received at the principal executive office of the appropriate company by February 15, 2010. The companies did not receive timely advance written notice of any shareholder matters that will be introduced at the annual meetings.

If you would like to introduce a shareholder proposal or other business during PG&E Corporation’s or the Utility’s 2011 annual meeting, each company’s Bylaws state that your proper advance written notice of the matter must be received at the principal executive office of the appropriate company no later than 5:00 p.m., Pacific time, on February 14, 2011. However, if the 2011 annual meeting of either company is scheduled on a date that differs by more than 30 days from the anniversary date of the 2010 annual meetings, your notice will be timely if it is received no later than the tenth day after the date on which that company publicly discloses the date of its 2011 annual meeting. These deadlines also may change in response to legal and regulatory requirements.

If you would like to nominate an individual for director during the annual meeting, certain additional information must be provided in your advance written notice. While you should consult the appropriate company’s Bylaws for specific requirements, your notice generally should include:

If you wish to submit advance notice of other business to be brought before the 2011 annual meetings, we recommend that you use a delivery method that indicates when the advance notice of other business was received at the principal executive office of the appropriate company.

Is there a different due date that applies if I want my shareholder proposal to be included in the proxy statement for the 2011 annual meetings?

Yes. If you would like to submit a proposal to be included in either company’s proxy statement for the 2011 annual meetings, that company’s Corporate Secretary must receive your proposal after the date of the 2010 annual meetings, but by 5:00 p.m., Pacific time, on December 1, 2010.

If you wish to submit a shareholder proposal for inclusion in the 2011 proxy statement, we recommend that you use a delivery method that indicates when your proposal was received at the principal executive office of the appropriate company.

How much did this proxy solicitation cost?

PG&E Corporation and the Utility hired D.F. King & Co., Inc. to assist in the distribution of proxy materials and solicitation of votes. The estimated fee is $13,500 plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. In addition, PG&E Corporation and the Utility will reimburse brokerage houses and other custodians, nominees, and fiduciaries for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses for forwarding proxy and solicitation material to shareholders.

Corporate Governance Guidelines

Our corporate governance practices are documented in Corporate Governance Guidelines that are adopted by the Boards of PG&E Corporation and the Utility and that are updated from time to time as appropriate and as recommended by the PG&E Corporation Nominating and Governance Committee. Other corporate governance practices may be found in the charters of the various committees of the PG&E Corporation and Utility Boards.

The PG&E Corporation Corporate Governance Guidelines are included as Appendix A to this Joint Proxy Statement. The Utility’s Corporate Governance Guidelines are substantially similar to the PG&E Corporation Corporate Governance Guidelines and, therefore, are not included in this Joint Proxy Statement. Additional information regarding the availability of the companies’ corporate governance documents can be found on page 14 of this Joint Proxy Statement.

Board Leadership Structure

Chairman of the Board

The primary duty of the Chairman is to preside over meetings of the respective Board. The Chairman also establishes the agenda for Board meetings, designates members of management who are present at Board meetings, and is consulted regarding members of management who are present at Board committee meetings. The Chairman has the authority to call regular and special meetings of the Board and is consulted regarding nominees for the Board and the composition and chairmanship of Board committees.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility each believe that it is not in the best interest of the company and its shareholders to have an inflexible rule regarding whether the offices of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) must be separate. When a vacancy occurs in the office of either the Chairman or the CEO, the affected Board will consider the

circumstances existing at that time and will determine whether the role of Chairman should be separate from that of the CEO and, if the roles are separate, whether the Chairman should be selected from the independent directors or from management. In addition, at least annually, each Board reviews the respective company’s Board leadership structure to assess whether it is appropriate.

In the past, PG&E Corporation and the Utility each have had both combined and separate Chairman and CEO positions. In each case, the applicable Board was able to consider all eligible directors and not exclude any eligible candidate from consideration for the position of Chairman. More recently, when the positions have been combined, each company also has had a strong and independent lead director (see the discussion under “Independent Lead Director/Executive Session Meetings” on page 7 of this Joint Proxy Statement).

At PG&E Corporation, the Chairman is PG&E Corporation’s CEO and President, Peter A. Darbee. Mr. Darbee has been an executive officer of PG&E Corporation since 1999, when he was elected as the company’s Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”). He has served as the CEO and President of PG&E Corporation since January 2005 and as Chairman since January 2006. In addition, he was the Chairman of the Utility from January 2006 to May 2007 and was President and CEO of the Utility from September 2008 to July 2009. The PG&E Corporation Board believes that having Mr. Darbee serve concurrently as the company’s Chairman and CEO is the most appropriate Board leadership structure at this time because, among other things, his extensive business experience at, and knowledge of, both PG&E Corporation and the Utility allow him to serve as an effective link between the Board and management, and facilitate bringing to the Board’s attention key business issues and stakeholder interests as the Board fulfills its duties.

At the Utility, the positions of Chairman and principal executive officer have been separated. The Chairman of the Utility is C. Lee Cox, who is the independent lead director of both the Utility and PG&E Corporation. Under the rules of the California Public Utilities Commission, the same individual may not serve as Chairman of both PG&E Corporation and the Utility. In light of the foregoing and given Mr. Cox’s leadership skills and extensive business experience and expertise (as described further on page 18 of this Joint Proxy Statement), the Utility Board considers Mr. Cox to be the most effective director to serve in the Chairman position. For these reasons, the Utility Board believes that this Board leadership structure is the most appropriate for the Utility at this time.

Board and Director Independence

The PG&E Corporation Corporate Governance Guidelines set forth a policy that 75% of the directors should be independent, as defined in the Guidelines and set forth on pages A-1 – A-8 of this Joint Proxy Statement. The NYSE rules also require that a majority of PG&E Corporation’s directors be independent, as defined by the NYSE, and that independent directors meet regularly. The definition of “independence” in the PG&E Corporation Corporate Governance Guidelines is more stringent than, and satisfies, the NYSE definitions.

The Utility’s Corporate Governance Guidelines also set forth a policy that 75% of the directors should be independent, as defined in the Guidelines. The NYSE Amex Equities (“AMEX”) rules also require that the Utility’s independent directors meet regularly. The Utility Board is exempt from AMEX rules requiring that at least a majority of the directors meet the stock exchange’s definition of “independent director” because PG&E Corporation holds approximately 96% of the voting power of the Utility and the Utility is a “controlled subsidiary.” The definition of “independence” in the Utility’s Corporate Governance Guidelines is more stringent than, and satisfies, the AMEX definitions.

Only independent directors may serve on PG&E Corporation’s Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, Finance Committee, Nominating and Governance Committee, and Public Policy Committee, and on the Utility’s Audit Committee.

Audit Committee members must meet additional independence standards. Only independent directors may serve as chairs of the PG&E Corporation and Utility Board committees listed above.

Independent Lead Director/Executive Session Meetings

PG&E Corporation and the Utility each have had an independent lead director since 2003. The lead director is elected from among the independent chairs of the respective company’s standing Board committees, or, in the case of the Utility, the standing Board committees of the Utility or PG&E Corporation, and must have served as a director of the respective company for at least one year. The independent directors of each company select the lead director, following nomination by the PG&E Corporation Nominating and Governance Committee. The lead director serves a term of three years and may be re-elected to consecutive terms.

Currently, C. Lee Cox is the independent lead director of both PG&E Corporation and the Utility.

The duties of the lead director are set forth in each company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and are identical for each company. Among other things, the lead director acts as a liaison between the Chairman (if the Chairman is not an independent director) and the independent directors. The lead director approves the agendas and schedules for meetings of the Board, as well as information sent to members of the Board.

At each regularly scheduled Board meeting, the independent directors of each Board meet in executive session without the other directors. The lead director coordinates the activities of the independent directors, including establishing the agenda for each executive session meeting of independent directors, presiding over these executive session meetings, and determining which, if any, other individuals (including members of management and independent advisors) should attend each executive session meeting. The lead director also may call special meetings of the independent directors.

The lead director receives written communications from each company’s shareholders and other interested parties, and is available for consultation and direct communication with major shareholders.

Director Nomination Process

The Boards of PG&E Corporation and the Utility each select nominees based on recommendations received from the PG&E Corporation Nominating and Governance Committee. The Committee’s recommendations are based upon a review of the qualifications of Board candidates, and consultation with the PG&E Corporation Chairman or the Utility Chairman, as applicable, and the PG&E Corporation CEO. For more information, see pages 15-27 of this Joint Proxy Statement related to Item No.1 (Election of Directors).

The Committee accepts recommendations for director nominees from a variety of sources, including executive search firms, shareholders, management, and Board members. The Committee reviews all recommended candidates for nomination at the annual meetings at the same time and uses the same review criteria for all candidates.

During 2008 and 2009, several directors retired or otherwise left the PG&E Corporation and Utility Boards, thereby creating vacancies on the Boards. On September 16, 2009, each Board elected two directors to fill these vacancies: Lewis Chew and Rosendo G. Parra. Mr. Chew and Mr. Parra both were identified through a third-party search firm. On February 17, 2010, the Utility Board elected Christopher P. Johns as a director. Each of these new directors is nominated for re-election at the companies’ respective 2010 annual meetings.

In 2008, the Committee retained an independent

third-party search firm to assist in the identification of candidates for director nominees. Based on an examination of the existing composition of the Boards, the qualifications of the current directors, the specific qualifications for director candidates that previously were approved by the Boards, and applicable stock exchange and other regulatory requirements regarding the independence and qualifications of the Boards as a whole and any standing Board committees, during 2008 and 2009, the search firm conducted research and initial interviews with potential candidates and provided the Committee and the PG&E Corporation Chairman with background information regarding a list of individuals who conformed with the applicable qualifications and characteristics.

Shareholders may recommend a person for the Committee to consider as a nominee for director of PG&E Corporation or the Utility, as applicable, by writing to that company’s Corporate Secretary. Each recommendation must include:

Recommended candidates may be required to provide additional information.

Executive Committees

The PG&E Corporation and Utility Boards each have an Executive Committee that may exercise any of the powers and perform any of the duties of the respective Board. This authority is subject to provisions of law and certain limits imposed by the PG&E Corporation Board or the Utility Board (as the case may be). The Executive Committees meet as needed.

Audit Committees

Each Board has a standing Audit Committee that advises and assists the appropriate Board with respect to:

Independence. Each member of the PG&E Corporation and Utility Audit Committees must be independent, as defined in the appropriate company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, in SEC rules regarding audit committee independence, and in applicable stock exchange rules.

Financial literacy and expertise. Each member of the PG&E Corporation and Utility Audit Committees must be financially literate, as defined in the applicable stock exchange rules. One member of each Audit Committee also must be an “audit committee financial expert.”

The Boards of PG&E Corporation and the Utility each have determined that all members of the respective company’s Audit Committee are financially literate, and that Barry Lawson Williams, the independent chair of each company’s Audit Committee, is an “audit committee financial expert,” as defined by the SEC.

Service on other audit committees. If an Audit Committee member simultaneously serves on the audit committees of three or more public companies other than PG&E Corporation, the Utility, and their subsidiaries, that Committee member must inform the appropriate company’s Board. In order for that member to continue serving on the Audit Committee, the Board must affirmatively determine that the simultaneous service does not impair that committee member’s ability to serve effectively on the Audit Committee.

Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee of PG&E Corporation advises and assists the Boards of PG&E Corporation and the Utility with respect to:

The PG&E Corporation Board has delegated to the Compensation Committee the authority to administer the PG&E Corporation 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan (LTIP), under which equity-based awards are made. The PG&E Corporation Board also has delegated to the CEO of PG&E Corporation the authority to make LTIP awards to certain eligible participants within the guidelines adopted by the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee may delegate its authority with respect to ministerial matters under the LTIP to the PG&E Corporation CEO or the PG&E Corporation Senior Vice President, Human Resources. The Compensation Committee also oversees other employee benefit plans.

Among other things, the Committee:

Independence. The Compensation Committee must be composed entirely of independent directors, as defined in the Corporate Governance Guidelines and by the NYSE.

Because PG&E Corporation holds approximately 96% of the voting power of the Utility, the Utility is a “controlled subsidiary” of PG&E Corporation and will not be subject to certain AMEX rules that otherwise would require that all members of the

Compensation Committee meet the AMEX definition of “independent director” and would impose requirements on the Utility’s methods for determining executive compensation.

Compensation Consultant. The Compensation Committee retains an independent consulting firm to help evaluate PG&E Corporation’s compensation policies, to provide information about industry compensation practices and competitive compensation levels at companies within a comparator group, and to recommend compensation alternatives that are consistent with PG&E Corporation’s compensation policies. The Committee approves the retention of the compensation consultant, the consultant’s fees, and the scope of the engagement.

At the beginning of 2009, the Compensation Committee retained Hewitt Associates, LLC (“Hewitt”) as its independent compensation consultant. During 2009, PG&E Corporation paid Hewitt approximately $118,000 for executive compensation services. Hewitt’s estimated fees were presented to the Committee in February 2009 during the Committee’s annual review of the services provided by the independent compensation consultant.

In addition, management retained Disability Management Alternatives (“DMA”), a subsidiary of Hewitt, to perform short-term disability, long-term disability, and leave management administration services for PG&E Corporation and the Utility during 2009. Management initially retained DMA for such services prior to Hewitt’s acquisition of DMA during 2008. Fees paid to DMA in 2009 were approximately $996,000. The individual at Hewitt who served as the Compensation Committee’s primary compensation consultant was not involved in any of the services provided by DMA. The Committee was informed that management historically has obtained these types of services from DMA, but the Committee was not required to approve these services and did not do so.

During 2009, the Compensation Committee determined that, in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest, its compensation consultant should provide no other services to PG&E Corporation or its affiliates. Hewitt no longer met this standard. Accordingly, the Committee interviewed several compensation consulting firms and in September 2009 selected Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc. (“FWC”) as its independent compensation consultant.

During 2009, FWC provided advice regarding executive and non-employee director compensation trends and policies with respect to the amount and form of compensation, and assisted with the Committee’s compensation risk assessment, but did not advise the Committee with respect to compensation actually paid during 2009 to PG&E Corporation and Utility executive officers whose compensation is reported in the tables in this Joint Proxy Statement or to non-employee directors. FWC and its affiliates only provide executive and non-employee director compensation consulting services to the Committee, and do not provide any services directly to management of PG&E Corporation or the Utility.

During 2009, the Compensation Committee also adopted a formal policy reflecting its commitment to maintain the compensation consultant’s independence from management. In general, the policy states that the Committee’s compensation consultant will be deemed independent if (1) the consultant is retained and terminated by the Committee and reports solely to the Committee, and (2) the consultant and its affiliates do not perform any work for PG&E Corporation or its affiliates, except at the request of the Committee or its Chair and in the capacity of the Committee’s agent.

Compensation Setting Process.

Non-employee directors. The Boards of PG&E Corporation and the Utility each establish the level of compensation for that company’s non-employee directors, based on the recommendation of the Compensation Committee and taking into account the impact of compensation on director independence. Directors who also are current employees of either company receive no additional compensation for service as directors.

The Compensation Committee periodically reviews the amount and form of compensation paid to non-employee directors of PG&E Corporation and the Utility, taking into account the compensation paid to directors of other comparable U.S. companies. The Committee conducts its review with the assistance of its independent compensation consultant.

Executive officers. Each year, the Compensation Committee (and with respect to the CEO of PG&E Corporation and the CEO or the President of the Utility, the independent members of the applicable

Board, based on the Committee’s recommendation) approves the amounts of total target compensation for executive officers, based on a review of comparative data as well as the PG&E Corporation CEO’s recommendations (and with respect to the PG&E Corporation CEO, the compensation consultant’s recommendations). The Committee uses comparative data throughout the year to set the total target compensation of new executive officers. The Committee also reviews other benefits provided to executive officers.

The PG&E Corporation Board has delegated the administration of the LTIP to the Compensation Committee (except for awards granted to the PG&E Corporation CEO or to the Utility CEO or President), including the power to determine the types of awards to be granted, the amounts, terms, and conditions of LTIP awards, and the individuals to whom LTIP awards are granted.

The PG&E Corporation Board has delegated to the PG&E Corporation CEO the authority to approve compensation, within guidelines approved by the Compensation Committee, to lower-level officers and to non-officer employees. With respect to annual equity awards, such Committee-approved guidelines include the LTIP award value ranges for different categories of employees, as well as the terms and conditions of all LTIP awards to be made during the year. The guidelines also specify the grant date for annual LTIP awards. Actual awards are generally made within the range of target LTIP values previously approved by the Committee.

Finance Committee

The Finance Committee of PG&E Corporation advises and assists the Boards of PG&E Corporation and the Utility with respect to the financial and capital investment policies and objectives of PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries, including specific actions required to achieve those objectives. Among other things, the Committee reviews:

Each year, the Finance Committee also presents for the PG&E Corporation and Utility Boards’ review and approval (1) a five-year financial plan for PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries that incorporates, among other things, PG&E Corporation’s business strategy goals, and (2) an annual budget that reflects elements of the approved five-year plan. Members of the Board receive a monthly report that compares PG&E Corporation’s performance to the budget and provides other information about financial performance.

Independence. The Finance Committee must be composed entirely of independent directors, as defined in the Corporate Governance Guidelines. All Committee members meet these independence requirements.

Nominating and Governance Committee

The Nominating and Governance Committee of PG&E Corporation advises and assists the Boards of PG&E Corporation and the Utility with respect to:

Independence. The Nominating and Governance Committee must be composed entirely of independent directors, as defined in the Corporate Governance Guidelines and by the NYSE. All Committee members meet these independence requirements.

Because PG&E Corporation and a subsidiary hold approximately 96% of the voting power of the Utility, the Utility is a “controlled subsidiary” of PG&E Corporation and will not be subject to certain AMEX rules that otherwise would require that all members of the Committee meet the AMEX definition of “independent director” and would impose requirements on the Utility’s director nomination process.

Public Policy Committee

The Public Policy Committee of PG&E Corporation advises and assists the Boards of PG&E Corporation and the Utility with respect to public policy and corporate responsibility issues that could affect significantly the interests of the customers, shareholders, or employees of PG&E Corporation or its subsidiaries.

Among other things, the Public Policy Committee reviews the policies and practices of PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries with respect to:

Independence. The Public Policy Committee must be composed entirely of independent directors, as defined in the Corporate Governance Guidelines.

Board-Level Oversight of Risk Management

As part of their oversight functions, the PG&E Corporation and Utility Boards generally oversee the companies’ risk management policies and programs, and allocate certain specific oversight responsibilities to the Board committees, consistent with the substantive scope of each committee’s charter. If a specific element of risk oversight is delegated to a Board committee, that committee provides a report of its activities to the applicable Board.

The allocation of Board-level risk oversight responsibility is based on legal requirements and internal governance standards. Some of the key areas in which risk management oversight has been allocated to Board committees include the following:

Other risk oversight responsibilities also have been allocated, consistent with each committee’s substantive scope.

The allocation of Board-level risk oversight responsibility is reviewed periodically. The last

assessment was conducted in December 2009 by the PG&E Corporation Nominating and Governance Committee.

Management has the day-to-day responsibility for assessing and managing PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s exposure to various risks. Management provides various reports to the Boards and their committees regarding different elements of corporate risk management programs and activities. Among other things, management’s enterprise risk management program focuses on identifying and addressing the largest risks facing the enterprise. PG&E Corporation and the Utility also have a Chief Risk and Audit Officer who functionally reports to the Audit Committees of PG&E Corporation and the Utility.

Board of Directors Retirement Policy

The Boards of PG&E Corporation and the Utility may not designate any person as a candidate for election or re-election as a director after such person has reached the age of 70.

Availability of Governance Documents

The following corporate governance documents are available in the Corporate Governance section of PG&E Corporation’s website (www.pgecorp.com/aboutus/) or the Utility’s website (www.pge.com/about/):

Shareholders also may obtain printed copies of these documents by sending a written request to the Corporate Secretary of the appropriate company.

Contacting the Directors or Officers of PG&E Corporation or Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Correspondence to the Board of PG&E Corporation or the Utility or any individual directors (including the non-employee or independent directors as a whole, or the lead director) or to PG&E Corporation or Utility officers should be sent to the principal executive office of the appropriate company in care of the Corporate Secretary. Correspondence addressed to either company’s Board as a body, or to all of the directors (or the independent directors) in their entirety, will be forwarded to the lead director. The Corporate Secretary will regularly provide each Board with a summary of communications from shareholders and other interested parties that the Corporate Secretary receives on behalf of that Board. A majority of the independent members of the Boards of PG&E Corporation and the Utility have approved this process for shareholders to send communications to the Boards.

The addresses of the principal executive offices are:

PG&E Corporation

One Market, Spear Tower, Suite 2400

San Francisco, CA 94105

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

77 Beale Street, 32nd Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

Shareholders are being asked to elect 11 directors to serve on the Board of PG&E Corporation and 12 directors to serve on the Board of the Utility. The 11 nominees for director of PG&E Corporation also are nominees for director of the Utility.

The nominees for director were selected by the Boards of PG&E Corporation and the Utility, as applicable, based on recommendations received from the PG&E Corporation Nominating and Governance Committee. The Committee reviews the qualifications of Board candidates in consultation with the PG&E Corporation Chairman or the Utility Chairman, as applicable, and the PG&E Corporation CEO.

All nominees are current directors who were elected by shareholders at the 2009 annual meetings, except for (1) Lewis Chew and Rosendo G. Parra, both of whom were elected to the PG&E Corporation and Utility Boards on September 16, 2009, and (2) Christopher P. Johns, who was elected to the Utility Board on February 17, 2010.

The Nominating and Governance Committee reviews Board candidates with a goal of creating for each company a balanced and multi-disciplinary Board composed of qualified, dedicated, ethical, and highly regarded individuals who have experience relevant to the company’s operations, understand the complexities of the company’s business environment, and possess capabilities to provide valuable insight and oversight. In conducting this review, the Committee considers the requirements for director independence and other qualifications contained in each company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and Board committee charters. The Committee also considers factors such as diversity, age, skills, and any other factors that it deems appropriate, given the current needs of the Boards and the companies.

With respect to diversity, the Nominating and Governance Committee seeks a range of different backgrounds, perspectives, skills, and experiences. Although there is no set policy regarding diversity of nominees for director, the Committee and the Boards annually review the diversity of the director nominees and the extent to which diverse backgrounds, perspectives, skills, and experiences are represented by the members of the Boards.

If elected as director, all of the nominees have agreed to serve and will 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.

If any of the nominees become unavailable at the time of the annual meetings to accept nomination or election as a director, the proxyholders named on the PG&E Corporation or Utility proxy card (as applicable) will vote for substitute nominees at their discretion.

Information is provided on the following pages about the nominees for director, including principal occupations and directorships held during the past five years, certain other directorships, age, length of service as a director of PG&E Corporation and/or the Utility, and membership on Board committees. Information regarding attendance at Board and committee meetings and ownership of PG&E Corporation and Utility stock is provided in the section entitled “Information Regarding the Boards of Directors of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company,” which can be found on pages 28-35 of this Joint Proxy Statement.

The Boards of Directors of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company Unanimously Recommend a Vote FOR Each of the Nominees for Director Presented in This Joint Proxy Statement.

The following section describes (1) the composition of the Boards of Directors and principal standing Board committees of PG&E Corporation and the Utility, (2) the functioning of the Boards and these Board committees, (3) qualifications and compensation of directors, and (4) other information regarding the director nominees.

Director Independence

The PG&E Corporation and Utility Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that each Board must have at least 75% independent directors (as defined in the Corporate Governance Guidelines, which are included as Appendix A to this Joint Proxy Statement), and that the following Board committees must be comprised entirely of independent directors: the PG&E Corporation and Utility Audit Committees, the PG&E Corporation Compensation Committee, the PG&E Corporation Finance Committee, the PG&E Corporation Nominating and Governance Committee, and the PG&E Corporation Public Policy Committee. Additional qualification requirements apply to members of the Audit Committees.

The Boards of PG&E Corporation and the Utility each have affirmatively determined that the following directors are independent: David R. Andrews, Lewis Chew, C. Lee Cox, Maryellen C. Herringer, Roger H. Kimmel, Richard A. Meserve, Mary S. Metz (director until May 13, 2009), Forrest E. Miller, Rosendo G. Parra, Barbara L. Rambo, and Barry Lawson Williams. Each of these directors is independent because they:

The PG&E Corporation and Utility Audit Committees, the PG&E Corporation Compensation Committee, the PG&E Corporation Finance Committee, the PG&E Corporation Nominating and Governance Committee, and the PG&E Corporation Public Policy Committee are each comprised solely of the above independent directors.

In the process of determining each director’s independence, the Boards considered transactions between PG&E Corporation or the Utility and their respective directors and their immediate family members, and entities with which the directors or their immediate family members were affiliated. Other than transactions with AT&T Inc. and Covington & Burling LLP, these transactions only involved the Utility’s provision of utility services at rates or charges fixed in conformity with law or governmental authority, which the Boards determined were not material and did not affect the director’s independence. PG&E Corporation and the Utility received from AT&T Inc. (of which Mr. Miller serves as an executive officer) utility services at rates or charges fixed in conformity with law or governmental authority, and other telecommunications services and related equipment in the ordinary course of business, which the Boards determined were not material and did not affect Mr. Miller’s independence. Within the past three years, PG&E Corporation and the Utility have received legal services from Covington & Burling LLP (to which Dr. Meserve is Senior Of Counsel), all of which were performed in the ordinary course of business. The annual dollar value of such services was less than the $10,000 per year disclosure threshold for review pursuant to the companies’ Related Party Transaction Policy. The Boards have determined that these transactions were not material.

Director Attendance at Board and Committee Meetings During 2009

During 2009, there were 8 meetings of the PG&E Corporation Board and 22 meetings of the PG&E Corporation Board committees. Each incumbent PG&E Corporation director attended at least 80% of the total number of applicable Board and Board committee meetings held during the period of their service on the Board and Board committees during 2009.

During 2009, there were 8 meetings of the Utility Board and 4 meetings of the Utility Board committees. Each incumbent Utility director attended at least 86% of the total number of applicable Board and Board committee meetings held during the period of their service on the Board and Board committees during 2009.

Director Attendance at the 2009 Annual Meetings

Each member of the Board of PG&E Corporation or the Utility is expected to attend that company’s annual meeting. Eight of the nine incumbent directors who were Board members at the time of PG&E Corporation’s 2009 annual meeting of shareholders attended PG&E Corporation’s 2009 annual meeting.

Eight of the nine incumbent directors who were Board members at the time of the Utility’s 2009 annual meeting of shareholders) attended the Utility’s 2009 annual meeting.

Compensation of Non-Employee Directors

In December 2006, the PG&E Corporation Nominating, Compensation, and Governance Committee (the PG&E Corporation Compensation Committee’s predecessor) reaffirmed the following approach for determining compensation levels for non-employee directors of PG&E Corporation and the Utility:

The following section provides additional information regarding compensation paid to the non-employee directors of PG&E Corporation and the Utility during 2009.

Director retainers and fees. During 2009, each director who was not an officer or employee of PG&E Corporation or the Utility received a quarterly retainer of $13,750. The non-employee directors who chaired the Compensation Committee, the Finance Committee, the Nominating and Governance Committee, and the Public Policy Committee each received an additional quarterly retainer of $1,875. The non-employee director who chaired the Audit Committees received an additional quarterly retainer of $12,500. In addition, the non-employee director who served as lead director received an additional quarterly retainer of $12,500.

Non-employee directors also receive a fee of $1,750 for each Board or Board committee meeting attended, except that members of the Audit Committees receive a fee of $2,750 for each Audit Committee meeting attended.

Directors also receive a $1,750 per meeting fee for attending shareholder meetings that are not held on the same day as a meeting of the respective company’s Board.

Non-employee director stock-based compensation. Under the PG&E Corporation 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan (“LTIP”), each non-employee director

of PG&E Corporation is entitled to receive annual awards of stock-based compensation.

Awards for 2009 were granted on March 9, 2009. Such grants had a total aggregate value of $90,000, composed of:

The per-option value is based on the Black-Scholes stock option valuation method, discounting the resulting value by 20%. The exercise price of stock options is the market value of PG&E Corporation common stock (i.e., the closing price) on the grant date. The value of each RSU is based on the closing price of PG&E Corporation common stock on the grant date.

Stock options vest over a four-year period following the grant date, with one-third of the grant vesting on each of the second, third, and fourth anniversaries of grant, except that stock options will vest immediately upon mandatory retirement from the Board, or upon a director’s death or disability. If a director ceases to be a member of the Board for any other reason, any unvested stock options will be forfeited.

Restricted stock awards vest over the five-year period following the grant date, except that restricted stock will vest immediately upon mandatory retirement from the Board or upon a director’s death or disability. If a director ceases to be a member of the Board for any other reason, any unvested shares of restricted stock will be forfeited.

RSUs granted to non-employee directors are payable only in the form of PG&E Corporation common stock following a director’s retirement from the Board after five consecutive years of service or upon reaching mandatory retirement age, or upon a director’s death or disability. If a director ceases to be a member of the Board for any other reason, all RSUs will be forfeited.

A non-employee director’s equity-based awards also will vest or accelerate in full if there is a Change in Control, as defined in the LTIP.

Stock-based compensation received by directors during 2009. On March 9, 2009, each non-employee director received stock-based compensation under the LTIP. Each non-employee director received 1,266 restricted shares of PG&E Corporation common stock. In addition, directors who were granted stock options received options to purchase 909 shares of PG&E Corporation common stock for each $5,000 increment of value (subject to a $45,000 limit) at an exercise price of $35.53 per share, and directors who were granted RSUs received 141 RSUs for each $5,000 increment of value (subject to a $45,000 limit).

Director payments for attending meetings of both PG&E Corporation and the Utility. Directors who serve on both the PG&E Corporation and Utility Boards and corresponding committees do not receive additional compensation for concurrent service on the Utility’s Board or its committees. However, separate meeting fees are paid for each meeting of the Utility Board, or a Utility 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 the Utility that meetings of the companies’ Boards and corresponding committees are held concurrently and, therefore, that a single meeting fee is paid to each director for each set of meetings.

Director’s ability to defer retainers and fees. Under the PG&E Corporation 2005 Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, directors of PG&E Corporation and the Utility may elect to defer all or part of their retainers and fees. Directors who participate in the Deferred Compensation Plan may elect either to (1) convert their deferred compensation into common stock equivalents, the value of which is tied to the market value of PG&E Corporation common stock, or (2) have their deferred compensation invested in the Utility Bond Fund.

Director reimbursement for travel and other expenses. Directors of PG&E Corporation and the Utility are reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with attending Board, Board

committee, or shareholder meetings, or participating in other activities undertaken on behalf of PG&E Corporation or the Utility.

Director retirement benefits from PG&E Corporation or the Utility. The PG&E Corporation Retirement Plan for Non-Employee Directors was terminated effective January 1, 1998. Directors who had accrued benefits under the Plan were given a one-time option of either (1) receiving the benefit accrued through 1997, upon their retirement, or (2) 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 accrued retirement benefits, or distributions from the Deferred Compensation Plan relating to the conversion of retirement benefits, cannot be made until the later of age 65 or retirement from the Board.

Related Person Transactions

During 2009, BlackRock, Inc. (“BlackRock”) became beneficial owner of 5.1% of PG&E Corporation common stock, upon BlackRock’s acquisition of Barclays Global Investments on December 1, 2009.

Affiliates of BlackRock provide investment management services to PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s employee benefit trusts and to the Utility’s nuclear decommissioning trusts. In exchange for these services, BlackRock’s affiliates earned approximately $3 million in fees during 2009. These investments were initiated prior to BlackRock’s becoming a 5% owner of PG&E Corporation. The fees for managing these funds are independently negotiated. As such, the terms of engagement for these services are comparable to those that could be obtained in arm’s-length dealings with an unrelated third party. PG&E Corporation and the Utility expect to continue to obtain similar services and products from BlackRock and its affiliates in the future, at similar levels, in the normal course of the companies’ business operations.

Sara A. Cherry became Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Utility effective March 1, 2010. Her husband, Brian K. Cherry, is Vice President, Regulatory Relations of the Utility. If Mr. Cherry remains employed with the Utility throughout 2010, his annual compensation for 2010

is expected to be substantially similar to annual compensation earned in 2009, which consisted of approximately $400,000 in salary and short-term incentive awards as well as LTIP awards with an estimated fair market value of approximately $210,000.

Review, Approval, and Ratification of Related Person Transactions

At their December 20, 2006 meetings, the Boards of PG&E Corporation and the Utility each adopted the joint Related Party Transaction Policy. The Related Party Transaction Policy generally applies to transactions that would require disclosure under Item 404(a) of Regulation S-K under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Item 404(a)”), except that the policy has a lower dollar threshold than Item 404(a). This policy was amended at the February 20, 2008 and February 18, 2009 Board meetings.

Under the Related Party Transaction Policy, at the first meeting of each year, each company’s Audit Committee must review, approve, and/or ratify related party transactions (other than the types of transactions that are excluded from disclosure under Item 404(a) as described below) with values exceeding $10,000, in which either company participates and in which any “Related Party” has a material direct or indirect interest. For these purposes, “Related Party” generally includes (1) any director, nominee for director, or executive officer, (2) holders of greater than 5% of the company’s voting securities, or (3) those parties’ immediate family members.

After the annual review and approval of related party transactions, if either company wishes to enter into a new related party transaction, then that transaction must be either pre-approved or ratified by the appropriate Audit Committee. If a transaction is not ratified in accordance with the Related Party Transaction Policy, management shall make all reasonable efforts to cancel or annul that transaction.

Where it is not practical or desirable to wait until the next Audit Committee meeting to obtain Committee approval or ratification, the Chair of the appropriate Audit Committee may elect to approve a particular related party transaction and then report on such approval to the full Audit Committee at the Committee’s next regularly scheduled meeting. If the

Chair of the Audit Committee has an interest in the proposed related party transaction, then that transaction may be reviewed and approved by another independent and disinterested member of the applicable Audit Committee, provided that such member reports such approval to the full Committee at the Committee’s next regularly scheduled meeting.

As part of the Audit Committees’ review of any related party transaction, the Committees consider whether the transaction is on terms comparable to those that could be obtained in arm’s-length dealings with an unrelated third party. The Related Party Transaction Policy also requires that each Audit Committee disclose to the respective Board any material related party transactions.

As provided in Item 404(a), the following types of transactions are excluded from the Related Party Transaction Policy:

During 2009, the Corporation and the Utility engaged in related party transactions with BlackRock, as previously disclosed. These transactions conform with the Related Party Transaction Policy.

In accordance with Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC regulations, PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s directors and certain officers, and persons who own greater than 10% of PG&E Corporation’s or the Utility’s equity securities must file reports of ownership and changes in ownership of such equity securities with the SEC and the principal national securities exchange on which those securities are registered, and must furnish PG&E Corporation or the Utility with copies of all such reports that they file.

Based solely on review of copies of such reports received or written representations from certain reporting persons, PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe that during 2009 all filing requirements applicable to their respective directors, officers, and 10% shareholders were satisfied. No information is reported for individuals during periods in which they were not directors, officers, or 10% shareholders of the respective company.

The Audit Committees of PG&E Corporation and the Utility each have selected and appointed Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte & Touche”) as the independent registered public accounting firm for that company to audit the consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010, and to audit the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, as of December 31, 2010. Deloitte & Touche is a major national accounting firm with substantial expertise in the energy and utility businesses. Deloitte & Touche has served as independent public accountants for PG&E Corporation and the Utility since 1999.

One or more representatives of Deloitte & Touche are expected to be present at the annual meetings. They will have the opportunity to make a statement if

they wish and are expected to be available to respond to questions from shareholders.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility are not required to submit these appointments to a vote of their shareholders. If the shareholders of either PG&E Corporation or the Utility do not ratify the appointment, the appropriate Audit Committee will investigate the reasons for rejection by the shareholders and 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.

Fees Paid to the Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Audit Committees have reviewed the audit and non-audit fees that PG&E Corporation, the Utility, and their respective subsidiaries have paid to the independent registered public accounting firm, in order to consider whether those fees are compatible with maintaining the firm’s independence.

Table 1:

Estimated Fees Billed to PG&E Corporation

(Amounts include Estimated Fees Billed to Pacific Gas and Electric Company and its Subsidiaries shown in Table 2 below)

Table 2:

Estimated Fees Billed to Pacific Gas and Electric Company and its Subsidiaries

(Amounts are included in Estimated Fees Billed to PG&E Corporation shown in Table 1 above)

Audit Fees. Audit fees billed for 2009 and 2008 relate to services rendered by Deloitte & Touche in connection with reviews of Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, certain limited procedures on registration statements, the audits of the annual financial statements of PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries and the Utility and its subsidiaries, and the audits of both PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s internal control over financial reporting, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Audit-Related Fees. Audit-related fees billed in 2009 and 2008 relate to services rendered by Deloitte & Touche to both PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries and the Utility and its subsidiaries for employee benefit plan audits, nuclear decommissioning trust audits, consultations on financial accounting and reporting standards, and required agreed-upon procedure reports related to contractual obligations of the Utility and its subsidiaries.

Tax Fees. Tax fees billed in 2009 and 2008 relate to services rendered by Deloitte & Touche to PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries for tax advice provided with respect to changes in tax accounting, routine tax compliance matters, general tax planning and advice, and tax controversy support.

All Other Fees. Deloitte & Touche provided no services in this category to PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries or to the Utility and its subsidiaries during 2009 and 2008.

Obtaining Services from the Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The following section describes policies and procedures regarding how PG&E Corporation, the Utility, and their consolidated affiliates may obtain services from Deloitte & Touche, including limitations on the types of services that the companies may obtain, and approval procedures relating to those services.

Services Provided by the Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

In June 2002, PG&E Corporation adopted a policy providing that the company and its controlled subsidiaries only could enter into new engagements with Deloitte & Touche and its affiliate, Deloitte Consulting, for three types of services. The three permitted categories of services are:

PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries traditionally have obtained these types of services from its independent registered public accounting firm.

Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policy for Services Provided by the Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

At the beginning of each year, the PG&E Corporation and Utility Audit Committees approve the selection of the independent registered public accounting firm for that fiscal year, and approve obtaining from the accounting firm a detailed list of (1) audit services, (2) audit-related services, and (3) tax services, all up to specified fee amounts.

In determining whether to pre-approve any services from the independent registered public accounting firm, the Audit Committees assess, among other things, the impact of that service on the accounting firm’s independence.

Additional Services. After the initial annual pre-approval, the Audit Committees must pre-approve any proposed engagement of the independent registered public accounting firm for any audit, audit-related, and tax services that are not included on the list of pre-approved services, and must pre-approve any listed pre-approved services that would cause PG&E Corporation or the Utility to exceed the authorized fee amounts. Other services may be obtained from the independent registered public accounting firm only following review and approval by the applicable company’s management and review and pre-approval by the applicable Audit Committee.

Delegation of Pre-Approval Authority. Each Audit Committee has delegated to the Committee Chair, or to any other independent Committee member if the Chair is not available, the authority to pre-approve audit and non-audit services provided by the company’s independent registered public accounting firm. Any pre-approvals granted under this authority must be presented to the full Audit Committee at the next regularly scheduled Committee meeting.

Monitoring Pre-Approved Services. At each regular meeting of the Audit Committees, management provides a report on the nature of specific audit and non-audit services being performed by Deloitte & Touche for the company and its subsidiaries, the year-to-date fees paid for those services, and a comparison of year-to-date fees to the pre-approved amounts.

Pre-Approval of Services During 2009 and 2008. During 2009 and 2008, all services provided by Deloitte & Touche to PG&E Corporation, the Utility, and their consolidated affiliates were approved under the applicable pre-approval procedures.

The Audit Committees of PG&E Corporation and the Utility are comprised of independent directors and operate under written charters adopted by their respective Boards. The members of the Audit Committees of PG&E Corporation and the Utility are identical. At both PG&E Corporation and the Utility, management is responsible for internal controls and the integrity of the financial reporting process.

In this regard, management has assured the Audit Committees that the consolidated financial statements of PG&E Corporation and the Utility were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. In addition, the Audit Committees reviewed and discussed these audited consolidated financial statements with management and the independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committees also discussed with the independent registered public accounting firm matters that are required to be discussed by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 114 (the successor to Statement on Auditing Standards No. 61 –“Communication with Audit Committees”).

Deloitte & Touche was the independent registered public accounting firm for PG&E Corporation and the Utility in 2009. Deloitte & Touche provided to the Committees the written disclosures and the letter

required by applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding Deloitte & Touche’s communications with the audit committee concerning independence, and the Committees discussed with Deloitte & Touche that firm’s independence.

Based on the Committees’ review and discussions described above, the Committees recommended to the Boards that the audited consolidated financial statements for PG&E Corporation and the Utility be included in the PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

March 31, 2010

Audit Committees of the Boards of Directors of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Barry Lawson Williams, Chair

David R. Andrews

Lewis Chew

Maryellen C. Herringer

Forrest E. Miller

PG&E Corporation and the Utility each believe that it is important to give shareholders the opportunity to provide input on executive compensation. Therefore, PG&E Corporation and the Utility each ask its shareholders to consider the following resolution:

Resolved: Shareholders approve of the company’s overall pay-for-performance compensation policies and practices, as well as the compensation of the company’s executive officers named in the Summary Compensation Table of this Joint Proxy Statement, as described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis and the compensation tables (and accompanying narrative) in this Joint Proxy Statement.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility each believe that its executive compensation policies and practices are effective in tying a significant portion of pay to performance, while providing competitive compensation that attracts and retains talented personnel, and aligning executive officers’ interests with shareholder interests.

In establishing PG&E Corporation’s officer compensation programs for 2009 (which also cover officers of the Utility), the PG&E Corporation Compensation Committee established three objectives. Each of these objectives, and how these objectives were met for 2009, is discussed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”), which can be found immediately following this Item No. 3, and is summarized below.

With the exception of base salary, all elements of annual officer compensation are tied to corporate operational and/or financial performance and, therefore, provide a direct connection between compensation and performance in both the achievement of key operating results and long-term shareholder value. More than two-thirds of the target

average compensation for named executive officers (“NEOs”) listed in the summary compensation table for 2009 (with the exception of the PG&E Corporation CEO) was performance-based. For the PG&E Corporation CEO, approximately 85% of annual target compensation was performance-based.

Target cash compensation for 2009 generally was within a range of 15% above to 15% below the corresponding measure for the Pay Comparator Group of publicly traded gas and electric utilities to evaluate market practice and assess its competitive pay position. (Additional information regarding the Pay Comparator Group can be found in the CD&A.)

The target values of long-term incentive awards granted in 2009 under the PG&E Corporation 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan (“LTIP”) were designed to deliver long-term incentive compensation at approximately the 75th percentile level of the Pay Comparator Group of companies upon achievement of the 75th percentile total shareholder return (“TSR”) performance (as measured by the value of PG&E Corporation stock price appreciation and dividends) relative to the Performance Comparator Group (a subset of the Pay Comparator Group that provides the basis for corporate performance comparisons under the LTIP). To the extent that PG&E Corporation performs at the 50th percentile level, LTIP payouts would be targeted at approximately the 50th percentile level of the Pay Comparator Group. Actual LTIP amounts realized by NEOs depend on PG&E Corporation’s performance as

measured by relative TSR performance as compared to the Performance Comparator Group.

The 2009 LTIP awards were comprised equally of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) and performance shares, except that Peter A. Darbee, the CEO of PG&E Corporation, received 40% RSUs and 60% performance shares. RSU value is tied directly to the price of PG&E Corporation common stock. Performance share value is tied to the relative three-year performance of PG&E Corporation common stock as compared to the stock performance of companies in the Performance Comparator Group. Mr. Darbee’s 2009 LTIP award contained a greater proportion of performance shares in order to tie more of his compensation directly to PG&E Corporation’s long-term performance for shareholders.

Details regarding the companies’ executive compensation programs, including the overall

pay-for-performance policies and practices, are described more fully in the CD&A, the compensation tables, and the accompanying narrative, all of which can be found immediately following this Item No. 3.

If the shareholders of either company do not approve this proposal, the PG&E Corporation Compensation Committee and members of management will investigate the reasons for such rejection and will consider those reasons when developing future executive compensation programs, practices, and policies.

The Boards of Directors of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company Unanimously Recommend a Vote FOR this Proposal to Approve Each Company’s Overall Pay-for-Performance Compensation Policies and Practices, as well as the Compensation of the Executive Officers Named in the Summary Compensation Table, as Described in this Joint Proxy Statement.

2009 Highlights

Corporate Performance

PG&E Corporation’s financial performance for 2009 reflects earnings per share from operations of $3.21,¹ as compared to $2.95 per share for 2008. This represents an 8.8% increase over 2008, and was in the upper half of the range with respect to the company’s guidance on 2009 earnings per share of $3.15 to $3.25. PG&E Corporation’s overall operational performance for 2009 was also above target. This performance for 2009 positively impacted payouts under the Short-Term Incentive Plan (“STIP”), which measures financial and operating performance on an annual basis, as well as the PG&E Corporation 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan (“LTIP”).

Corporate Governance and Compensation Practices

The PG&E Corporation Compensation Committee continued to review its compensation practices and policies in comparison to evolving best practices. Since the beginning of 2009, the Committee or the Boards (at the Committee’s recommendation) have adopted several new policies and programs, including:

Each of these initiatives is discussed in more detail throughout this Joint Proxy Statement.

Information in the CD&A

This CD&A discusses the compensation for 2009 that was awarded to, earned by, or paid to certain executive officers of PG&E Corporation and the Utility whose compensation is reported in the tables in this Joint Proxy Statement. Under the SEC’s proxy rules, NEOs of PG&E Corporation and the Utility generally consist of the principal executive officer and principal financial officer of each company and the three highest paid executive officers of each company.

This CD&A answers the following questions:

Who Plays a Role in Establishing Executive Compensation?

The Committee, comprised entirely of independent directors, oversees and establishes officer compensation policies for PG&E Corporation. These policies also cover officers of the Utility and each company’s subsidiaries. The Committee works with an independent executive compensation consultant, who provides advice regarding executive compensation programs and practices and recommends compensation alternatives that are consistent with PG&E Corporation’s compensation philosophies.

In February 2009, the Committee retained Hewitt Associates, LLC (“Hewitt”) as its independent compensation consulting firm. As described on page 11 of this Joint Proxy Statement, affiliates of Hewitt provided other services to PG&E Corporation and Utility management.

During 2009, the Committee determined that, in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest, its compensation consultant should provide no other services to PG&E Corporation or its affiliates. Hewitt no longer met this standard. Accordingly, the Committee interviewed several compensation consulting firms and in September 2009 selected Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc. (“FWC”) as its compensation consultant to advise on compensation programs and practices, including 2010 officer pay levels.

During 2009, the Committee also adopted a formal policy to maintain the compensation consultant’s independence from management. In general, the policy states that the Committee’s executive compensation consultant will be independent if (1) the consultant is retained by the Committee and

reports solely to the Committee, and (2) the consultant and its affiliates do not perform any work for PG&E Corporation or its affiliates, except at the request of the Committee or its chair and in the capacity of the Committee’s agent.

The CEO of PG&E Corporation generally attends a portion of each Committee meeting, but does not participate in the Committee’s deliberations or decisions with respect to his pay. At the Committee’s request, the CEO reviews with the Committee the performance of the other NEOs, but no other NEO has any input into executive compensation decisions. The CEO also recommends adjustments, if any, in base pay, the target annual incentive opportunity, and equity awards for the other NEOs. These recommendations are given appropriate weight by the Committee in the compensation-setting process, given the CEO’s direct knowledge of the performance and contributions of each of the NEOs. The Committee exercises its discretion to accept, reject, or modify the CEO’s recommendations based on the Committee members’ collective assessment of the NEOs’ performance and pay position relative to market benchmarks provided by the Committee’s independent compensation consultant, as well as PG&E Corporation’s overall financial and operating performance.

Additional details regarding the processes for determining and setting executive compensation are set forth on pages 11 and 12 of this Joint Proxy Statement.

How Do Shareholders Provide Input Regarding the Executive Compensation Program?

PG&E Corporation and the Utility feel that it is important to provide shareholders with the means to provide input on PG&E Corporation’s executive compensation programs and the clarity of the company’s disclosures regarding such programs.

In 2009, PG&E Corporation initiated a dialogue with its top 40 institutional investors by requesting their views on the company’s executive compensation policies and programs. In 2010, PG&E Corporation expanded its outreach and requested such input from its 100 largest institutional investors, including input on the company’s use of metrics and comparator groups to determine incentive pay.

With the exception of one respondent who commented on the use of multiple comparator groups, all respondents viewed PG&E Corporation’s compensation practices favorably.

Starting with their annual meetings in 2010, PG&E Corporation and the Utility have voluntarily agreed to provide shareholders with the right to cast an advisory vote on the companies’ executive compensation policies and practices and NEO compensation. (See pages 40-41 of this Joint Proxy Statement.) As described more fully in that section of this Joint Proxy Statement, PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe that their executive compensation program is transparent, is appropriately market-based, and reflects PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s philosophy of pay-for-performance and strong shareholder alignment. For these reasons, we believe shareholders should vote in favor of the proposal to approve PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s executive compensation policies and practices and NEO compensation. The Committee will take the results of this vote into consideration as it develops its executive compensation program for the following year.

What Factors Guided the Committee’s 2009 Officer Compensation Program Goals and Objectives?

The Committee established its officer compensation program for 2009 to meet three primary goals:

To meet these goals, the Committee determined that:

PG&E Corporation’s compensation policies and practices described below and elsewhere in this Joint Proxy Statement are designed to meet these goals and objectives. These goals and objectives remain unchanged from 2008.

How Did the Committee Benchmark and Establish the 2009 Officer Compensation Program?

The Committee uses a primary Pay Comparator Group of publicly traded gas and electric utilities to evaluate market practice and assess PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s competitive pay position. In addition, the Committee uses a secondary general industry comparator group of companies having a revenue and market capitalization scope similar to that of PG&E Corporation. All elements of total direct pay (base pay and short-and long-term incentive targets) are compared individually and in the aggregate to the primary Pay Comparator Group in the case of all officers. Comparisons also are made to the secondary general industry comparator group for officers whose job scope and skills are easily transferable to other industries, such as officers responsible for corporate support functions.

The Committee annually reviews and approves the Pay Comparator Group, which consists of all companies listed in the Standard & Poor’s Multi-Utilities Index and Electrics Index, as well as the Dow Jones Utility Index, providing objective criteria for determining the Pay Comparator Group. A total of 27 companies were listed in 2009:

AES Corporation

Allegheny Energy

Ameren Corporation

American Electric Power

CenterPoint Energy, Inc.

CMS Energy

Consolidated Edison

DTE Energy

Dominion Resources, Inc.

Duke Energy

Edison International

Entergy Corporation

Exelon Corporation

FPL Group

First Energy

Integrys Energy Group, Inc.

NiSource, Inc.

PPL Corporation

Pinnacle West Capital

Progress Energy, Inc.

Public Service Enterprise Group

Sempra Energy

Southern Company

TECO Energy

TXU Corporation

Williams Companies

Xcel Energy, Inc.

For 2009, the secondary general industry comparator group was based on Hewitt’s proprietary executive compensation database. The group included 84 companies with annual revenues between $8 billion and $20 billion (with median revenues of $12.3 billion and median market capitalization of $16.6 billion). A list of these 84 companies is included in Appendix B to this Joint Proxy Statement.

PG&E Corporation also identifies a Performance Comparator Group, which is a subset of the Pay Comparator Group. The Performance Comparator Group consists of companies with operating characteristics and business models comparable to PG&E Corporation and is used for evaluating relative TSR performance in connection with the LTIP. This subset of companies is not used separately to benchmark officer compensation. For 2009, the Performance Comparator Group consisted of the following 12 companies:

Ameren Corporation

American Electric Power

CenterPoint Energy, Inc.

Consolidated Edison

Entergy Corporation

FPL Group

NiSource, Inc.

Pinnacle West Capital

Progress Energy, Inc.

Southern Company

TECO Energy

Xcel Energy, Inc.

The Committee does not adhere strictly to formulas or survey data to determine the actual mix and amounts of compensation elements. The Committee considers various additional factors, including each NEO’s scope of responsibility and organizational impact, experience, and performance, as well as PG&E Corporation’s overall financial and operating results. This flexibility is important in supporting the overall pay-for-performance philosophy and in meeting the Committee’s objectives of attracting, retaining, and motivating a talented executive leadership team.

In reviewing and establishing compensation for NEOs, the Committee reviewed tally sheets prepared by FWC.

The Committee appropriately weighs the tax deductibility limitations imposed by Section 162(m) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. The Committee in its discretion may award forms of compensation that are not deductible under Section 162(m) when it determines that such awards best carry out the goals and objectives of its officer compensation programs.

What Are the Components of the 2009 Officer Compensation Program?

Total annual compensation each year includes (1) base salary, (2) the annual cash incentive under the STIP, and (3) the value of equity awards granted under the LTIP. The following charts illustrate the percentage of target 2009 compensation allocated to base salary, short-term incentives, and long-term incentives for the PG&E Corporation CEO and for the other NEOs on average.

2009 PG&E Corporation CEO Target Compensation

Average 2009 Target Compensation for Other NEOs

The Committee believes that these proportions of base salary relative to target short-term and long-term incentives provide the right mix to attract, retain, and motivate officers with the necessary skills and experience for the development and successful operation of PG&E Corporation’s businesses. They also provide a direct connection between compensation and performance in both the achievement of key operating results and long-term shareholder value, as more fully described below.

As indicated by the charts above, a greater portion of the PG&E Corporation CEO’s compensation is tied to the long-term performance of the company, which the Committee believes is appropriate given the CEO’s role.

How Is Officer Compensation Aligned with the Competitive Market?

During the last quarter of fiscal year 2008, the Committee reviewed a market analysis conducted by Hewitt of each NEO’s compensation levels for 2008 in order to determine whether to adjust any NEO’s pay for 2009. In February 2009, the Committee (and the independent members of the applicable Boards in the case of Mr. Darbee, who was CEO of both PG&E Corporation and the Utility at the time) approved increases to the base salaries, target short-term incentive opportunities, and long-term incentives for NEOs effective March 1, 2009.

In setting 2009 compensation levels, base pay and short-term incentive targets were aligned with the market average. The target LTIP award values are designed to deliver long-term incentive compensation at approximately the 75th percentile level of the Pay Comparator Group of companies upon achievement

of 75th percentile TSR performance relative to our Performance Comparator Group. To the extent that the company performs at the 50th percentile level, LTIP payouts would be targeted at approximately the 50th percentile level of the Pay Comparator Group. Actual LTIP amounts realized by NEOs depend on company performance as measured by relative TSR performance as compared to the Performance Comparator Group. (TSR performance is discussed further under the Long-Term Incentives section on pages 50-53 of this Joint Proxy Statement.)

Base Salary

For NEO compensation, the base salary component falls within a range of only 15% to 43% of target total compensation, depending on officer level. This is consistent with the Committee’s objective of tying a significant component of every NEO’s compensation directly to PG&E Corporation’s performance for shareholders through short-term and long-term incentives.

For 2009, the Committee approved a base salary increase budget of 3.75%. Base pay increases to NEOs, excluding any internal equity or promotional adjustments, equaled approximately 4.0%. The comparative data indicated that the companies in the Pay Comparator Group expected to provide officers a 3.8% average salary increase in 2009, and that those companies’ average salary increase in 2008 was 3.8% percent. Lump-sum payments may be used in lieu of increases to base pay in those cases where an officer’s current salary is well above competitive market pay levels and continued increases to base pay could place the officer’s salary outside of a market average pay range. Mid-year increases could also occur in the case of promotions, or where an officer’s compensation does not reflect appropriate internal equity when compared to the salaries of officers whose roles are viewed to be comparable. For NEOs, mid-year salary increases are subject to Committee approval.

In the case of NEOs with positions that could be benchmarked, base pay at PG&E Corporation and the Utility is generally within a range of between 15% above and 15% below (the “15% band”) the average pay of the appropriate benchmark position in the Pay Comparator Group at the time of benchmarking. The Committee believes that this level of comparability to the market is appropriate and consistent with the pay

philosophy of aligning compensation with market average, while taking into consideration other factors relative to establishing individual pay levels. Based on analysis of competitive salary levels of comparable roles, Rand L. Rosenberg, Senior Vice President, Corporate Strategy and Development of PG&E Corporation, was given a lump-sum payment in lieu of an increase to base pay. For the position of Vice President, Finance and CFO of the Utility, held by Barbara L. Barcon, a base pay increase of 3.0% was provided in addition to a lump-sum payment of $2,000 to ensure adherence to the salary increase budget and appropriate alignment to market.

Effective August 1, 2009, the annual base salary for Kent M. Harvey was increased to $525,000 from $408,168. This increase reflects his increased responsibilities following his election and promotion to the positions of Senior Vice President and CFO of PG&E Corporation and Senior Vice President, Financial Services of the Utility. Prior to that time, Mr. Harvey served as Senior Vice President and Chief Risk and Audit Officer of PG&E Corporation. Effective August 1, 2009, the annual base salary for Christopher P. Johns was increased to $635,000 from $572,271. This increase reflects his increased responsibilities following his election and promotion to the position of President of the Utility. Prior to that time, Mr. Johns served as Senior Vice President and CFO of PG&E Corporation and Senior Vice President, Financial Services of the Utility.

Short-Term Incentives

NEOs and other eligible employees may earn annual performance-based cash incentive compensation under the STIP.

STIP payments are calculated by multiplying an individual’s target STIP award (measured as a percentage of base salary that varies by officer level, or the “participation rate”) by the overall STIP performance score. The STIP performance score is the overall score for performance on each of the STIP measures, and can range from zero if minimum performance goals are not met to 2.0 if maximum performance goals are met.

For 2009, the Committee approved NEO participation rates that ranged from 45% of base

salary to 100% of base salary (the 100% participation rate applies only to the CEO of PG&E Corporation). This range is within the 15% band of the Pay Comparator Group’s average annual incentive participation rates.

Effective March 1, 2009, Christopher P. Johns’ and John S. Keenan’s STIP participation rates were increased from 55% to 70%. This increase followed a recommendation by Hewitt that the annual incentive levels for the positions then held by Mr. Keenan (Utility Chief Operating Officer) and Mr. Johns (PG&E Corporation CFO) be increased accordingly based on benchmarking data from the Pay Comparator Group. 2009 STIP participation rates for all other NEOs remained the same as for 2008.

Effective August 1, 2009, Mr. Johns’ STIP participation rate was increased from 70% to 75%, reflecting his increased responsibilities following his election and promotion to the position of President of the Utility. Also effective August 1, 2009, Kent M. Harvey’s STIP participation rate was increased from 50% to 65%, reflecting his increased responsibilities following his election and promotion to the positions of Senior Vice President and CFO of PG&E Corporation and Senior Vice President, Financial Services of the Utility. Both Mr. Johns’ and Mr. Harvey’s 2009 STIP participation rates were prorated based on the number of months at each participation rate during the year.

2009 STIP Structure and Results

In 2008, the Committee established 2009 STIP financial and operational performance goals at minimum (or “threshold”), target, and maximum levels, and determined the relative weightings of each component (the “STIP Structure”). The Committee designed the 2009 STIP Structure with the objective of aligning officer compensation with the goal of delivering financial results for the benefit of shareholders, as well as delivering safe, reliable, and exceptional service to Utility customers.

Under the 2009 STIP Structure, 50% of the overall STIP performance score is based on corporate financial performance, as measured by earnings from operations, which is PG&E Corporation’s basis for reporting and providing guidance to the financial community. Meeting the earnings from operations target continues to be an important objective for management; therefore, this component is a primary

element of the 2009 STIP Structure. For 2009, the Committee increased the weighting of the earnings from operations measure from 40% (in 2008) to 50%. PG&E Corporation believes that using earnings from operations as the STIP metric gives executives line of sight to key financial drivers in the business.

The Committee has adopted threshold, target, and maximum STIP financial performance goals that correspond to STIP financial performance scores ranging from 0.5 to 2.0. The threshold goal is met if earnings from operations are at least 93% of budgeted earnings from operations, resulting in a minimum STIP financial performance score of 0.5. The target goal is met if earnings from operations are equal to budgeted earnings from operations, resulting in a target STIP financial performance score of 1.0. The maximum goal is met if earnings from operations equal or exceed 105% of budgeted earnings from operations, resulting in a maximum STIP financial performance score of 2.0. To meet the maximum goal, 2009 earnings from operations must be 15.4% greater than the 2008 earnings from operations results.

Based on 2009 earnings from operations of $1,223 million, the Committee determined that the 2009 STIP corporate financial performance score was 1.574. This result was due to additional revenues generated by new capital investments in the Utility’s infrastructure, the recovery of previously incurred costs through the regulatory process, and improved operational performance.

In addition to corporate financial performance, 50% of the overall 2009 STIP score was determined by PG&E Corporation’s performance against key operational objectives aligned with the delivery of safe, reliable, and exceptional service to customers.

2009 STIP – Operational Performance Measures

These four measures have the following definitions:

For 2009, PG&E Corporation’s result on the Reliable Energy Delivery Index was 1.775. This result exceeded the target goal of 1.000. Management believes that this positive outcome was driven by reliability improvements. Fewer storms in 2009 than in 2008 also positively affected both SAIFI and CAIDI. Positive performance on the gas system leak resurvey work was driven by more aggressive planning, focus, and effective execution assisted by good weather.

The target goal of 69.50% was an increase from the 2008 result of 68.60%, requiring a significant improvement in performance for this metric. For 2009, PG&E Corporation’s result on the Employee Engagement Premier Survey Results Index was 66.70%, which was below the target. As a result, the 2009 STIP rating on this measure was 0.000. Management believes that this decrease in performance reflects a challenging year for employees, including continued focus on performance and cost management. While survey scores declined overall compared to 2008, there were improvements in several areas, including work group collaboration and intent to remain employed by PG&E Corporation or the Utility.

The combined 2009 operational performance results yielded a combined 2009 STIP operational performance score of 1.721. This score was combined with the corporate financial performance score of 1.574 to yield an overall 2009 STIP score of 1.648. The 2009 STIP payments to the NEOs are shown in the Summary Compensation Table.

Under the STIP, the Committee has full discretion to lower the final STIP payments from the amount that would be paid based on achievement of the targets.

The Committee did not exercise its discretion to modify any 2009 STIP payments.

2010 STIP Structure

In February 2010, the Committee approved the structure, measures, and their relative weightings for the 2010 STIP.

For 2010, the corporate financial performance goal for STIP will be PG&E Corporation’s earnings from operations and will comprise 50% of the overall STIP score.

The 2010 STIP financial performance score has a threshold of 95% (compared to 93% in 2009) of budgeted earnings from operations to 105% at maximum, representing a minimum STIP financial performance score of 0.5 to a maximum STIP financial performance score of 2.0. To meet the maximum goal, 2010 earnings from operations would have to increase by at least 14.9% above 2009 earnings from operations. The Committee believes that this presents a significant challenge to management and, if achieved, would justify a maximum STIP financial performance score of 2.0.

For 2010, STIP operational performance measures have been expanded to include environmental leadership as a new fifth goal. The target operational performance goals for the 2010 STIP are set forth in the table below.

2010 STIP – Operational Performance Goals

The Customer Satisfaction and Brand Health Index, Reliable Energy Delivery Index, and the Employee Engagement Premier Survey Results Index are largely the same as those used for the 2009 STIP. Changes for 2010 are highlighted below.

Long-Term Incentives

For 2009 compensation, the Committee (and, with respect to Mr. Darbee, the independent members of the PG&E Corporation Board) approved LTIP guidelines that include the range of target LTIP award values based on officer level, the terms and conditions of all LTIP awards, and the grant date for annual LTIP awards. Actual awards (both annual and

mid-year) are made within the range of target LTIP values previously approved by the Committee and granted consistent with the PG&E Corporation Equity Grant Date Policy, which was first adopted in June 2007 and last amended in December 2009.

In December 2008, the Committee (and the independent members of each Board in the case of Mr. Darbee) approved the recommended 2009 target LTIP award values for the NEOs, ranging from $300,000 to $5,300,000 (the upper end applicable only to Mr. Darbee). The 2009 annual LTIP awards granted to the NEOs, with the exception of Mr. Darbee, were comprised of 50% restricted stock units (“RSUs”) and 50% performance shares. The independent members of each company’s Board determined that a higher percentage of Mr. Darbee’s long-term incentives should be tied directly to PG&E Corporation’s long-term performance for shareholders. Therefore, they approved an LTIP award comprised of approximately 40% RSUs and 60% performance shares. Prior to 2009, Mr. Darbee’s annual LTIP award was comprised of 50% RSUs and 50% performance shares.

The Committee believes that this allocation of equity balances the interests of shareholders and officers by linking the value of long-term compensation to stock price appreciation and relative TSR. Details regarding restricted stock units and performance share grants are provided below.

Restricted stock units. RSUs are hypothetical shares of stock that are settled in an equal number of shares of PG&E Corporation common stock. RSUs align officers’ interests with those of shareholders (i.e., stock price appreciation and dividends). RSUs also serve as a retention mechanism, because RSUs generally only vest if the officer remains employed over the vesting period.

The number of RSUs granted to each NEO in 2009 was determined by dividing one-half of that NEO’s target LTIP award value (40% in the case of Mr. Darbee) by the average daily closing price of a share of PG&E Corporation common stock for the first five business days of March 2009 (or the closing price on the grant date for non-annual grants), as

reported on the New York Stock Exchange. RSUs granted in 2009 are shown in the “Grants of Plan-Based Awards in 2009” table on page 61 of this Joint Proxy Statement. RSUs vest in 20% increments on the first, second and third anniversary of the date of grant. The remaining 40% vests on the fourth anniversary of the date of grant.

Performance shares. Performance shares are hypothetical shares of PG&E Corporation common stock that are tied directly to PG&E Corporation’s performance for shareholders. The number of performance shares granted in 2009 to each NEO was determined by dividing one-half of that NEO’s actual LTIP award value (60% in the case of Mr. Darbee) by the average daily closing price of a share of PG&E Corporation common stock for the first five business days of March 2009, as reported on the New York Stock Exchange. Performance shares granted in 2009 are shown in the “Grants of Plan-Based Awards in 2009” table below.

Performance shares granted in 2009 will vest, if at all, on the third business day of March 2012 following completion of the three-year performance period starting January 1, 2009 and ending December 31, 2011. The payout value of any vested performance share will be based on PG&E Corporation’s TSR relative to the Performance Comparator Group for the period. The payment for performance shares will be in cash and will be calculated by multiplying (1) the number of vested performance shares by (2) the average closing price of PG&E Corporation common stock over the last 30 calendar days of the year preceding the vesting date, and by (3) a payout factor based on PG&E Corporation’s relative TSR performance against the Performance Comparator Group.

As shown in the LTIP Performance Share Payout Scale below, there will be no payout if PG&E Corporation’s TSR falls below the 25th percentile of the Performance Comparator Group; there will be a 25% payout if PG&E Corporation’s TSR is at the 25th percentile; there will be a 100% payout if PG&E Corporation’s TSR is at the 75th percentile; and there will be a 200% payout if PG&E Corporation’s TSR ranks first in the Performance Comparator Group.

LTIP Performance Share Payout Scale

Number of Companies in Total

(including PG&E Corporation) = 13

In 2009, PG&E Corporation marked the end of the three-year performance cycle for annual performance share awards offered under the LTIP that were granted in 2007. For the three years ended December 31, 2009, PG&E Corporation’s TSR, as measured by stock price appreciation and dividends, ranked 5th among the 13 companies in the Performance Comparator Group. That rank represents performance at the 67th percentile, resulting in a payout of 90% of the original target share award. PG&E Corporation’s TSR performance for the three years was 5.6%, which was better than the median among the comparator group of companies of 1.9% and the (15.9%) negative return of the S&P 500 for the same period.

Beginning with the March 2010 LTIP awards, performance shares will be settled in shares of PG&E Corporation common stock and will no longer be settled in cash. This change facilitates greater stock ownership at both the officer and non-officer levels. This change also will cause the performance shares to be treated as equity awards (rather than liability awards) for accounting purposes.

Executive Stock Ownership Guidelines

The Executive Stock Ownership Program is designed to encourage senior executive officers to achieve and maintain a minimum investment in PG&E Corporation common stock at levels set by the

Committee, and further aligns executive interests with those of PG&E Corporation’s shareholders. Executive stock ownership guidelines have been adopted by most of the companies in the Pay Comparator Group, and are increasingly viewed as an important element of a company’s governance policies.

The stock ownership target for the PG&E Corporation CEO is three times base salary. The target ownership level for other NEOs is two times base salary. Officers are encouraged to meet their stock ownership target within five years after becoming subject to the Program.

The Committee also authorized the use of Special Incentive Stock Ownership Premiums (“SISOPs”), which are designed to provide incentives to eligible officers to assist in achieving minimum stock ownership targets established by the Committee, prior to the end of the five-year period. SISOPs are awarded to eligible officers if they achieve and maintain stock ownership levels early, prior to the end of the third year following the year in which an officer first became an eligible executive. SISOPs are stock units awarded under the LTIP and are credited to the officer’s deferred compensation account in the 2005 PG&E Corporation Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan (“SRSP”).

If at the end of five years, an executive officer fails to meet or maintain the applicable stock ownership target, then that officer’s future cash-based awards (such as a STIP payment) may be deferred as stock units and credited to the officer’s account under the SRSP until the stock ownership target is met.

All NEOs have met or exceeded their stock ownership targets under the Program with the exception of the former Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, who was not subject to the guidelines. For additional details regarding SISOPs, please see the narrative accompanying the table “Grants of Plan-Based Awards in 2009.”

Equity Grant Dates

Consistent with the PG&E Corporation Equity Grant Date Policy, annual equity awards for 2009 were granted on March 9, 2009 in order to take into account the timing of PG&E Corporation’s investor conference relating to PG&E Corporation

performance and to enable the market price of PG&E Corporation common stock to reflect the disclosure of all material information, including the information presented at the investor conference. The policy generally provides that annual LTIP awards are granted when the market price of PG&E Corporation common stock reflects the disclosure of all material information.

Under this policy, the grant date for non-annual equity awards to employees (such as for newly hired or newly promoted officers) shall be the later of (1) the date that the non-annual award is approved by the independent members of the PG&E Corporation or Utility Board, the Committee, or PG&E Corporation CEO, as applicable, (2) the date that the LTIP award recipient becomes an employee, if applicable, or (3) the date otherwise specified by the applicable Board, the Committee, or the PG&E Corporation CEO.

In addition, if the grant date of any LTIP award would occur during a trading blackout period, as defined under the PG&E Corporation Insider Trading Policy, then the actual grant date will be the first business day after the trading blackout period ends.

Special Awards

On the first business day of January 2009, a modification was made to Mr. Darbee’s January 3, 2007 restricted stock award to avoid an unintended tax consequence. Under the original grant, if Mr. Darbee retired or was terminated without cause, a prorated portion of the restricted stock award would have vested. That prorated portion was not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture and became taxable as income, even if Mr. Darbee still was employed by PG&E Corporation and the prorated portion did not actually vest or become payable. The replacement of restricted stock with RSUs avoids this consequence. Therefore, Mr. Darbee’s remaining 12,693 shares of restricted stock from his January 3, 2007 LTIP award were cancelled. In lieu of the cancelled shares, Mr. Darbee was granted 12,693 RSUs (the “Replacement RSU Grant”) that contain the same general terms and conditions as those applicable to the cancelled portion of the restricted stock award, and have the same vesting date as the original award (i.e., the first business day of January 2012). The vesting period of the Replacement RSU Grant began on the first business day of January 2009. Mr. Darbee will be entitled to receive dividend equivalents associated with all the RSUs subject to the vesting of the RSU awards.

Effective August 10, 2009, in connection with his promotion to his new position, Mr. Johns received a prorated supplemental LTIP award of $279,000, representing an annualized value of $500,000. Also effective August 10, 2009, in connection with his promotion to his new position, Mr. Harvey received a prorated supplemental LTIP award of $140,000, with an annualized value of $250,000. These awards reflected the additional LTIP value that would be deliverable to these officers based on their promotions to new positions.

Executive Incentive Compensation Recoupment (Clawback) Policy

At their February 17, 2010 meeting, the Boards adopted a formal policy authorizing recoupment of certain incentive compensation if either PG&E Corporation or the Utility restates its financial statements that are filed with the SEC, with respect to any fiscal year within the three-year period preceding the filing of the restatement (a “Restatement Year”). In case of such a restatement, the Committee (or with respect to the CEO, the full Board of the applicable company) may, in good-faith exercise of its reasonable discretion and to the extent permitted by law, seek to recoup long-term and short-term incentive compensation previously paid with respect to each Restatement Year to any individual who was a Section 16 Officer of that company during that Restatement Year. (A Section 16 Officer includes an “officer” of either PG&E Corporation or the Utility who is subject to the reporting and short swing profit liability provisions of Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.) Compensation may be recouped to the extent that such compensation would have been lower when computed using the restated financial statements, and the Committee and the Boards have discretion to recoup such compensation on a tax-neutral basis. The policy applies only to compensation paid after the effective date of the policy, February 17, 2010. The policy provides additional leverage for the companies to restore shareholder value that may be lost due to a financial restatement.

What Are the Other Elements of Executive Compensation?

Perquisites and Related Compensation

In general, the NEOs receive a limited range of perquisite benefits, typically encompassing a partial subsidy for financial planning services from a

third-party financial advisory firm, partial reimbursement of certain health club fees, certain life insurance subsidies, parking reimbursement, and executive health services. Mr. Darbee and Mr. Johns also receive car transportation services. The magnitude of these perquisites, including the lump-sum payment described in the following paragraph, is comparable to that provided to executive officers of companies in the Pay Comparator Group, and the value of these services are taxable to the recipient.

The Committee (and the independent members of the Boards of PG&E Corporation and the Utility in the case of Mr. Darbee) also approved a 2009 lump-sum annual stipend amount for each executive officer, which ranged from $15,000 to $35,000 (the upper end applicable only to the CEO of PG&E Corporation). This stipend is provided in lieu of providing the NEO with additional benefits. The NEOs have discretion to use this stipend as they see fit.

Elimination of Tax Restoration (Gross-up) Payments

During the first quarter of 2009, the Committee elected to eliminate tax gross-up payments made in connection with executive compensation, with two exceptions: (1) tax gross-up obligations that are part of benefit programs offered to all employees (e.g., certain expenses associated with relocation programs and temporary housing), and (2) obligations under pre-existing change in control agreements to reimburse excise taxes triggered by payments in connection with a change in control.

The PG&E Corporation Officer Severance Policy, first adopted in 1998, provides for the gross-up of excise tax payments associated with a change in control. No other officer policies or arrangements provide gross-up provisions. Therefore, neither PG&E Corporation nor the Utility has entered into any new excise tax gross-up arrangements associated with a change in control.

Post-Service Benefits

Retirement/Pension

NEOs are eligible to receive retirement benefits under the Utility’s tax-qualified defined benefit plan (pension plan), which also provides benefits to other eligible employees of PG&E Corporation and the

Utility. NEOs also are eligible to receive benefits under the PG&E Corporation Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (“SERP”), which is a non-tax-qualified defined benefit pension plan that provides officers and key employees of PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries, including the Utility, with a pension benefit. These plans are described in the section entitled “Pension Benefits – 2009” on pages 65-66 of this Joint Proxy Statement.

With respect to the SERP, the Committee has adopted a policy against crediting additional years of service for participants under this plan.

NEOs and other officers and employees also are eligible to participate in the PG&E Corporation Retirement Savings Plan (“RSP”), a tax-qualified 401(k) plan. PG&E Corporation provides a maximum matching contribution of 75 cents for each dollar contributed up to 6% of base salary. To the extent that matching contributions cannot be made to an NEO’s RSP account because the Internal Revenue Code limits would be exceeded, PG&E Corporation contributes the excess amount to the NEO’s account in the SRSP.

The majority of companies in the Pay Comparator Group provide tax-qualified defined benefit plans (e.g., pensions or similar plans), other tax-qualified defined contribution plans (i.e., 401(k) plans), and non-tax-qualified retirement plans. The Committee believes that these plans offer significant recruiting and retention incentives. The magnitude of PG&E Corporation’s retirement programs is generally comparable to that of the Pay Comparator Group.

Additional details regarding the retirement programs and the value of pension benefits accumulated as of December 31, 2009 for the executive officers named in the Summary Compensation Table are reported in the table entitled “Pension Benefits – 2009” below.

What Compensation Is Payable Upon Termination and/or a Change in Control of PG&E Corporation?

Termination Generally Absent a Change in Control

General Severance Benefits – The PG&E Corporation Officer Severance Policy provides certain officers of PG&E Corporation and the Utility, including the NEOs, with severance benefits if their employment is terminated without cause. The purpose of the severance policy is to (1) attract and retain senior management by providing severance

benefits that are part of a competitive total compensation package, (2) provide consistent treatment for all terminated officers, and (3) by conditioning payments upon a general release of claims, minimize potential litigation costs in connection with terminations of employment. These severance benefits are described below under the section entitled “Potential Payments – Termination Without Cause” on page 71 of this Joint Proxy Statement.

LTIP Awards – Treatment of 2009 LTIP awards upon severance is set forth in the individual LTIP award agreements. In general, if an NEO is terminated without cause,

If an NEO resigns or is terminated for cause (i.e., for dishonesty, a criminal offense, or violation of a work rule), the NEO forfeits any unvested restricted stock, RSUs, or performance shares, and would not receive any associated dividends.

Termination in Connection with a Change in Control

The PG&E Corporation Board has determined that the provision of change in control benefits is a key part of PG&E Corporation’s officer compensation program. In a hostile takeover or other change in control situation, it is important for management to remain focused on maximizing shareholder value and aligning management’s interests with shareholders’ interest, and not be distracted by concerns about the security of their jobs. The benefit levels provided to the covered officers, including the NEOs, under different termination circumstances reflect competitive market practices among the Pay Comparator Group that the Committee benchmarks.

Shareholder approval is required for certain severance payments provided in connection with a change in control, as described further under “Golden Parachute Restriction Policy” below.

Golden Parachute Restriction Policy – The Golden Parachute Restriction Policy requires shareholder approval of certain executive severance payments provided in connection with a change in control of PG&E Corporation, to the extent that those payments exceed 2.99 times the sum of a covered officer’s base salary and target STIP award.

Officer Severance Policy – The PG&E Corporation Officer Severance Policy provides certain NEOs with compensation if (1) there is a Change in Control of PG&E Corporation (as defined in the Policy), and (2) that NEO is terminated without cause or terminates for good reason in connection with the Change in Control or Potential Change in Control (as defined in the Policy) of PG&E Corporation. The Policy applies to officers of PG&E Corporation with the title of Senior Vice President or higher, and the principal executive officers of the Utility and of any other participating subsidiary. Specific benefits are described in the section entitled “Potential Payments – Change in Control with Other Triggering Events” on pages 71-74 of this Joint Proxy Statement.

LTIP Awards – Upon a Change in Control of PG&E Corporation, the vesting schedule for LTIP awards may be accelerated if (1) the successor company fails to continue previously granted awards in a manner that preserves the value of those awards, or (2) the award recipient is terminated in connection with a Change in Control during a specified period of time before or after the Change in Control. This practice aligns PG&E Corporation with market trends and (1) better balances the interests of award recipients and shareholders, (2) provides security for award recipients in a time of uncertainty, and (3) preserves the incentive for award recipients to stay with PG&E Corporation even following a transaction.

Details regarding the specific termination provisions are discussed in the section entitled “Potential Payments – Change in Control with Other Triggering Events” below.

Are There Material Differences Between Compensation Paid to the Different NEOs?

There is no material difference in compensation policy among the NEOs. The compensation

philosophy and policies discussed throughout the CD&A apply equally to all executive officers. There are no differences in the types of compensation nor the methodology used to establish compensation levels among the NEOs. The differences that exist in the amounts of compensation generally relate to each NEO’s position and the pay differences determined from the benchmarking study conducted for the Committee.

For example, when determining total target compensation for the PG&E Corporation CEO, the Committee first uses competitive market data in assessing appropriate levels of base pay and total annual cash compensation, focusing on how the CEO’s base pay and total cash compensation compare to the market average. Next, to determine the appropriate amount of long-term incentive opportunities, the Committee considers the annual LTIP value range, which is established based on competitive market data and comprised of a minimum, target, and maximum LTIP value. The Committee then evaluates the CEO’s leadership, accomplishments, personal development, and PG&E Corporation’s performance results to arrive at final total compensation recommendations for the independent members of the Board to review and approve. As part of this process, the Committee

considers whether the CEO has achieved his annual objectives that are reviewed and approved by the Committee at the beginning of each year. These objectives closely track short-term and long-term financial and operational goals for PG&E Corporation, which have previously been reviewed and approved by the Board. The individual objectives may relate to corporate financial performance and shareholder returns, operational performance, investment in utility infrastructure, corporate culture, and effective communications with key stakeholders.

Conclusion

The Committee believes that the amount and design of executive compensation provided in 2009 to the NEOs of PG&E Corporation and the Utility are consistent with the Committee’s compensation objectives and policies to (1) provide long-term incentives to align shareholders’ and officers’ interests and enhance total return for shareholders, (2) attract, retain, and motivate employees with the necessary mix of skills and experience for the development and successful operation of PG&E Corporation’s businesses, and (3) compensate NEOs in a competitive, cost-efficient, and transparent manner.

The Compensation Committee of PG&E Corporation is comprised of independent directors and operates under a written charter adopted by the PG&E Corporation Board. The Compensation Committee is responsible for overseeing and establishing officer compensation policies for PG&E Corporation, the Utility, and their subsidiaries.

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the section of this Joint Proxy Statement entitled “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” with management. Based on its review and

discussion with management, the Compensation Committee has recommended to the Boards of PG&E Corporation and the Utility that the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section be included in this Joint Proxy Statement.

March 31, 2010

C. Lee Cox, Chair

Forrest E. Miller

Barbara L. Rambo

Barry Lawson Williams