<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="644">
<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top">
<p align="center">SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION</p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top">
<p align="center"><br />
 </p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top">
<p align="center">Washington, D.C.&nbsp; 20549</p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top">
<p align="center"><br />
<br />
 </p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top"></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top">
<p align="center">FORM 8-K</p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top">
<p align="center"><br />
 </p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top">
<p align="center">CURRENT REPORT</p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top">
<p align="center"><br />
 </p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top">
<p align="center">Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934</p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top">
<p align="center"><br />
 </p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top">
<p align="center">Date of Report: June 20, 2002</p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top">
<p align="center"><br />
 </p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top"></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td valign="top">
<p align="center"><br />
 Commission<br />
 File<br />
 Number</p>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<p align="center">Exact Name of<br />
 Registrant<br />
 as specified in<br />
 its charter</p>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<p align="center"><br />
 State or other<br />
 Jurisdiction of<br />
 Incorporation</p>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<p align="center"><br />
 IRS Employer<br />
 &nbsp; Identification<br />
 Number</p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td valign="top">
<p align="center">_____________</p>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<p align="center">_____________</p>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<p align="center">_____________</p>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<p align="center">_____________</p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td valign="top">
<p align="center">1-12609</p>

<p align="center">1-2348</p>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<p align="center">PG&amp;E Corporation</p>

<p align="center">Pacific Gas and<br />
 Electric Company</p>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<p align="center">California</p>

<p align="center">California</p>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<p align="center">94-3234914</p>

<p align="center">94-0742640</p>

<p align="center"><br />
 </p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td valign="top"></td>
<td valign="top"></td>
<td valign="top"></td>
<td valign="top"></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="2" valign="top">
<p align="center">Pacific Gas and Electric Company<br />
 77 Beale Street, P. O. Box 770000<br />
 San Francisco, California&nbsp;&nbsp;94177</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2" valign="top">
<p align="center">PG&amp;E Corporation<br />
 One Market, Spear Tower, Suite 2400<br />
 San Francisco, California&nbsp;&nbsp;94105</p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top"></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top">
<p align="center">(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip
Code)</p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td valign="top">
<p align="center"><br />
 </p>
</td>
<td valign="top"></td>
<td valign="top"></td>
<td valign="top"></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="2" valign="top">
<p align="center">Pacific Gas and Electric Company<br />
 (415) 973-7000</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2" valign="top">
<p align="center">PG&amp;E Corporation<br />
 (415) 267-7000</p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top"></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top">
<p align="center">(Registrant's telephone number, including area
code)</p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td valign="top"></td>
<td valign="top"></td>
<td valign="top"></td>
<td valign="top"></td>
</tr>
</table>

<p><br />
</p>

<div align="center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center" />
</div>

<p><br />
Item 5. Other Events</p>

<p>A.&nbsp;&nbsp; Pacific Gas and Electric Company Bankruptcy</p>

<p>The proposed plan of reorganization (Plan) of Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (Utility), a subsidiary of PG&amp;E Corporation,
contemplates that a new entity, Electric Generation, LLC (Gen)
(which will become a subsidiary of PG&amp;E Corporation after
consummation of the Plan), will enter into a long-term power sales
agreement with the reorganized Utility.&nbsp; In late November
2001, Gen, which was formed to hold the generation assets of the
Utility pursuant to the Plan, filed an application with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) seeking approval of the
proposed power sales agreement. Under the proposed agreement the
reorganized Utility would purchase power from Gen at fixed rates
(subject only to an inflation adjustment) for 11 years from the
Plan effective date and approximately half the output for the 12th
and final year of the contract at stable prices.&nbsp; The FERC
must find that the power sales agreement is just and reasonable
before the agreement could become effective.&nbsp;&nbsp; In order
to demonstrate that the pricing, terms and conditions of the
proposed power sales agreement are just and reasonable, Gen
submitted benchmark evidence of contemporaneous sales made by
non-affiliated parties for similar services in the California
electric market.&nbsp;</p>

<p></p>

<p>On June 12, 2002, the FERC ordered that an expedited hearing be
held on the narrow issues of (1) whether the power sales agreement
is comparable to the selected benchmark contracts, and (2) whether
Gen used an appropriate set of contracts for the benchmark
analysis.&nbsp; The FERC ordered that the administrative law judge
(ALJ) hold a hearing and issue an initial decision for
consideration by the FERC within 120 days of the order.&nbsp;</p>

<p>At a prehearing conference held on June 18, 2002, the ALJ set a
procedural schedule that calls for discovery to be concluded by
August 19, 2002, for the parties&rsquo; proposed findings of fact
and conclusions of law to be filed by August 20, 2002, for hearings
to begin August 26, 2002, and for the ALJ&rsquo;s initial decision
to be issued by October 10, 2002.</p>

<p>Before the Plan can become effective, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Northern District of California (Bankruptcy Court), where
the Utility&rsquo;s bankruptcy case is pending, must confirm the
Plan and certain other conditions must be met.&nbsp; The California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has proposed an alternative plan
of reorganization for the Utility.&nbsp; The disclosure statements
relating to the competing plans have been sent to creditors
entitled to vote on the plans.&nbsp; All ballots must be received
by August 12, 2002.&nbsp; It is uncertain whether the Bankruptcy
Court will confirm the Utility&rsquo;s Plan, the CPUC&rsquo;s
alternative plan, or either plan.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

<p></p>

<p>B. Legal Proceedings</p>

<p></p>

<p>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
As previously disclosed, the California Attorney General (AG) and
the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) each filed a complaint
against PG&amp;E Corporation in San Francisco Superior Court
alleging violations of the California Unfair Competition Act,
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, which
prohibits unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices.&nbsp;
Among other allegations these complaints allege that PG&amp;E
Corporation violated various conditions established by the CPUC in
decisions approving the holding company formation and that such
alleged violations constituted unfair business practices in
violation of the statute.&nbsp; The AG also alleges that, through
the Utility's bankruptcy proceedings, PG&amp;E Corporation and the
Utility engaged in unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business
practices by seeking to implement the transactions proposed in the
Plan.&nbsp; A complaint containing similar allegations was also
filed by a private plaintiff in Santa Clara Superior Court,
<i>Cynthia Behr v. PG&amp;E Corporation, et al.</i>&nbsp; PG&amp;E
Corporation had removed all three complaints to the Bankruptcy
Court and the plaintiffs filed motions to remand the cases to state
court.&nbsp; The Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on April 24, 2002,
to consider the remand motion.</p>

<p></p>

<p>On June 14, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision that,
as an initial matter, rejected the AG&rsquo;s and CCSF&rsquo;s
claim that sovereign immunity barred the removal of the cases from
state court to federal court.&nbsp; The Bankruptcy Court also found
that what the court called the &ldquo;Plan Claims&rdquo; &ndash;
those alleging that PG&amp;E Corporation had manipulated the
bankruptcy process in a manner constituting an unlawful or unfair
business practice &ndash; are exclusively bankruptcy issues to be
heard in bankruptcy court and cannot be heard by the state court.
Those issues thus would not be remanded to state court.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The court also refused to remand CCSF&rsquo;s and Behr&rsquo;s
claims for fraudulent transfer, unjust enrichment, conversion and
violation of the bulk sales law, finding that those claims belong
to the estate and cannot be pursued by others in state
court.&nbsp;&nbsp; With respect to the claims related to the
transfers of money from the Utility to PG&amp;E Corporation (for
example, by way of dividends and stock repurchases), ring-fencing
transactions, and related issues (what the court referred to
collectively as the &ldquo;First Priority Claims&rdquo;), the court
found that these claims should be returned to the state
court.&nbsp; The court reasoned that the AG&rsquo;s and
CCSF&rsquo;s First Priority Claims, based on violation of the
unfair business practices statute, were civil actions brought by
governmental units to enforce such governmental unit&rsquo;s police
or regulatory power.&nbsp; Under the Bankruptcy Code, the court
found, such actions may not be removed to the Bankruptcy Court. As
to Behr&rsquo;s First Priority Claim, the court recognized that as
a private plaintiff, the &ldquo;police power&rdquo; exception to
removal was inapplicable.&nbsp; Nevertheless, the court remanded
her claim under its equitable remand authority.</p>

<p>The court&nbsp; remanded CCSF&rsquo;s First Priority Claims and
ordered the AG and Behr to amend their complaints no later than
July 14, 2002, to either delete their Plan Claims or separate the
Plan Claims and the First Priority Claims into distinct causes of
action.&nbsp; A status conference has been set for July 22,
2002.</p>

<p>PG&amp;E Corporation and the Utility believe that they have
complied with applicable statutes, CPUC decisions, rules, and
orders.&nbsp; PG&amp;E Corporation will vigorously respond to and
defend the litigation.&nbsp; PG&amp;E Corporation cannot predict
whether the outcome of the litigation will have a material adverse
effect on its results of operations or financial condition.</p>

<br clear="all" />


<p><br />
</p>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tr>
<td valign="top">
<p>SIGNATURE</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>

<p>Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the registrants have duly caused this report to be signed on
their behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.</p>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tr>
<td valign="top">
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<p>PG&amp;E CORPORATION<br />
 </p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td valign="top">
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<p>By:&nbsp; CHRISTOPHER P. JOHNS</p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td valign="top">
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<p>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</u></p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td valign="top">
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;CHRISTOPHER P.
JOHNS<br />
 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Senior Vice President
and Controller<br />
<br />
 </p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td valign="top">
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</td>
<td valign="top"></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td valign="top">
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<p>PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY<br />
 </p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td valign="top">
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<p>By:&nbsp;&nbsp;LINDA Y.H. CHENG</p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td valign="top">
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; <u>&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</u></p>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td valign="top">
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;LINDA Y.H. CHENG</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Corporate Secretary</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>

<p>Dated:&nbsp; June 20, 2002</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
[{"type": "8-K", "sequence": "1", "filename": "final620.htm", "description": "FORM 8-K", "secsgml_size_bytes": 13268}]
{"company-data": {"conformed-name": "PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO", "cik": "0000075488", "assigned-sic": "4931", "irs-number": "940742640", "state-of-incorporation": "CA", "fiscal-year-end": "1231"}, "filing-values": {"form-type": "8-K", "act": "34", "file-number": "001-02348", "film-number": "02683701"}, "business-address": {"street1": "77 BEALE ST", "street2": "P O BOX 770000", "city": "SAN FRANCISCO", "state": "CA", "zip": "94177", "phone": "4152677000"}, "mail-address": {"street1": "77 BEALE STREET", "street2": "P O BOX 770000", "city": "SAN FRANCISCO", "state": "CA", "zip": "94177"}}
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.  20549
FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934
Date of Report: June 20, 2002
Commission
File
Number
Exact Name of
Registrant
as specified in
its charter
State or other
Jurisdiction of
Incorporation
IRS Employer
Identification
Number
_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________
1-12609
1-2348
PG&E Corporation
Pacific Gas and
Electric Company
California
California
94-3234914
94-0742640
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
77 Beale Street, P. O. Box 770000
San Francisco, California  94177
PG&E Corporation
One Market, Spear Tower, Suite 2400
San Francisco, California  94105
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip
Code)
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
(415) 973-7000
PG&E Corporation
(415) 267-7000
(Registrant's telephone number, including area
code)
Item 5. Other Events
A.   Pacific Gas and Electric Company Bankruptcy
The proposed plan of reorganization (Plan) of Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (Utility), a subsidiary of PG&E Corporation,
contemplates that a new entity, Electric Generation, LLC (Gen)
(which will become a subsidiary of PG&E Corporation after
consummation of the Plan), will enter into a long-term power sales
agreement with the reorganized Utility.  In late November
2001, Gen, which was formed to hold the generation assets of the
Utility pursuant to the Plan, filed an application with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) seeking approval of the
proposed power sales agreement. Under the proposed agreement the
reorganized Utility would purchase power from Gen at fixed rates
(subject only to an inflation adjustment) for 11 years from the
Plan effective date and approximately half the output for the 12th
and final year of the contract at stable prices.  The FERC
must find that the power sales agreement is just and reasonable
before the agreement could become effective.   In order
to demonstrate that the pricing, terms and conditions of the
proposed power sales agreement are just and reasonable, Gen
submitted benchmark evidence of contemporaneous sales made by
non-affiliated parties for similar services in the California
electric market.
On June 12, 2002, the FERC ordered that an expedited hearing be
held on the narrow issues of (1) whether the power sales agreement
is comparable to the selected benchmark contracts, and (2) whether
Gen used an appropriate set of contracts for the benchmark
analysis.  The FERC ordered that the administrative law judge
(ALJ) hold a hearing and issue an initial decision for
consideration by the FERC within 120 days of the order.
At a prehearing conference held on June 18, 2002, the ALJ set a
procedural schedule that calls for discovery to be concluded by
August 19, 2002, for the parties' proposed findings of fact
and conclusions of law to be filed by August 20, 2002, for hearings
to begin August 26, 2002, and for the ALJ's initial decision
to be issued by October 10, 2002.
Before the Plan can become effective, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Northern District of California (Bankruptcy Court), where
the Utility's bankruptcy case is pending, must confirm the
Plan and certain other conditions must be met.  The California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has proposed an alternative plan
of reorganization for the Utility.  The disclosure statements
relating to the competing plans have been sent to creditors
entitled to vote on the plans.  All ballots must be received
by August 12, 2002.  It is uncertain whether the Bankruptcy
Court will confirm the Utility's Plan, the CPUC's
alternative plan, or either plan.
B. Legal Proceedings
As previously disclosed, the California Attorney General (AG) and
the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) each filed a complaint
against PG&E Corporation in San Francisco Superior Court
alleging violations of the California Unfair Competition Act,
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, which
prohibits unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices. 
Among other allegations these complaints allege that PG&E
Corporation violated various conditions established by the CPUC in
decisions approving the holding company formation and that such
alleged violations constituted unfair business practices in
violation of the statute.  The AG also alleges that, through
the Utility's bankruptcy proceedings, PG&E Corporation and the
Utility engaged in unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business
practices by seeking to implement the transactions proposed in the
Plan.  A complaint containing similar allegations was also
filed by a private plaintiff in Santa Clara Superior Court,
Cynthia Behr v. PG&E Corporation, et al.
PG&E
Corporation had removed all three complaints to the Bankruptcy
Court and the plaintiffs filed motions to remand the cases to state
court.  The Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on April 24, 2002,
to consider the remand motion.
On June 14, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision that,
as an initial matter, rejected the AG's and CCSF's
claim that sovereign immunity barred the removal of the cases from
state court to federal court.  The Bankruptcy Court also found
that what the court called the "Plan Claims" –
those alleging that PG&E Corporation had manipulated the
bankruptcy process in a manner constituting an unlawful or unfair
business practice – are exclusively bankruptcy issues to be
heard in bankruptcy court and cannot be heard by the state court.
Those issues thus would not be remanded to state court.  
The court also refused to remand CCSF's and Behr's
claims for fraudulent transfer, unjust enrichment, conversion and
violation of the bulk sales law, finding that those claims belong
to the estate and cannot be pursued by others in state
court.   With respect to the claims related to the
transfers of money from the Utility to PG&E Corporation (for
example, by way of dividends and stock repurchases), ring-fencing
transactions, and related issues (what the court referred to
collectively as the "First Priority Claims"), the court
found that these claims should be returned to the state
court.  The court reasoned that the AG's and
CCSF's First Priority Claims, based on violation of the
unfair business practices statute, were civil actions brought by
governmental units to enforce such governmental unit's police
or regulatory power.  Under the Bankruptcy Code, the court
found, such actions may not be removed to the Bankruptcy Court. As
to Behr's First Priority Claim, the court recognized that as
a private plaintiff, the "police power" exception to
removal was inapplicable.  Nevertheless, the court remanded
her claim under its equitable remand authority.
The court  remanded CCSF's First Priority Claims and
ordered the AG and Behr to amend their complaints no later than
July 14, 2002, to either delete their Plan Claims or separate the
Plan Claims and the First Priority Claims into distinct causes of
action.  A status conference has been set for July 22,
2002.
PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe that they have
complied with applicable statutes, CPUC decisions, rules, and
orders.  PG&E Corporation will vigorously respond to and
defend the litigation.  PG&E Corporation cannot predict
whether the outcome of the litigation will have a material adverse
effect on its results of operations or financial condition.
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the registrants have duly caused this report to be signed on
their behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
PG&E CORPORATION
By:  CHRISTOPHER P. JOHNS
CHRISTOPHER P.
JOHNS
Senior Vice President
and Controller
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
By:  LINDA Y.H. CHENG
LINDA Y.H. CHENG
Corporate Secretary
Dated:  June 20, 2002