The Sisters of St. Dominic of Caldwell, New Jersey, 52 Old Swartswood Station Road, Newton, NJ 07860, and other filers have notified GE that they intend to submit the following proposal at this year’s meeting:

“Whereas:

“General Electric disposed of at least 1.3 million pounds of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) into the Hudson River. An additional large amount seeped beneath GE plants in Fort Edward and Hudson Falls, NY, some of which is currently discharging into the Hudson River. The Environmental Protection Agency designated 200 miles of the Hudson River as a Superfund site in 1984. In February 1976, a state Department of Conservation Hearing Officer, in a case against GE, described GE’s actions as ‘corporate abuse’ and found that the record ‘overwhelmingly’ demonstrated that GE violated NY State law by discharging large quantities of PCBs into the Hudson River.

“The federal government regulates PCBs as a known animal carcinogen and probable human carcinogen. Additional independent evidence indicates that PCBs may affect the immune and reproductive systems, cause endoctrine disruption and have neurological effects.

“Sampling by the Environmental Protection Agency and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has determined that PCB concentrations in the Upper Hudson sediments range as high as 40 times the state standard. EPA determined in 1999 that the health risk from eating PCB-contaminated fish from the Upper Hudson exceeds the EPA protective level by 1000 times. New York has warned children under 15 and women of childbearing age to eat no fish from the Hudson, south of the GE plants.

“Despite repeated government and other studies determining that PCBs are a serious threat, GE engages in extensive public relations efforts, suggesting that ‘there is no credible evidence that PCBs in the Hudson River pose a risk to people or wildlife,’ (GE spokesman Mark Behan, EPA Reports Dangers in Eating Fish From Upper Hudson River, Associated Press, 8/4/99).

“GE has engaged in extensive public relations and lobbying efforts concerning the federal Superfund law, and related state laws, and repeatedly has challenged federal and state enforcement actions. These efforts have tarnished GE’s credibility and delayed the cleanups.

“Resolved: Shareholders request the Board of Directors to report by August 1, 2001, at reasonable cost and excluding confidential information, its annual expenditures by category and specific site (where applicable) for each year from 1990-2000, on attorney’s fees, expert fees, lobbying, and public relations/media expenses, relating in any way to the health and environmental consequences of PCB exposures, GE’s remediation of sites contaminated by PCBs, and/or hazardous substance laws and regulations, as well as expenditures on actual remediation of PCB contaminated sites.

“Statement Of Support: A recent example of GE’s misleading media efforts was a public relations document concerning a GE-financed study by Dr. Renata Kimbrough and others examining the cancer mortality of GE plant employees. GE’s document failed to note that scientists at the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry stated the study ‘suffered from healthy worker effect bias, failed to account for latency, potentially insufficient dosage differences … and poor statistical power (and) did find excesses in three of the six cancers of interest.’”

Your Board of Directors recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal.

GE has undertaken substantial efforts to remediate the effects of past waste disposal, to comply with current standards of environmental protection and worker safety, and to prevent future environmental harm. Moreover, GE is accountable to many units and levels of government, both in the United States and in other nations, for sound environmental practices. As part of this accountability, GE complies with governmental reporting requirements regarding environmental matters. Under these circumstances – a substantial Company program and regulatory requirements of localities, states, the federal government and other nations – your Board does not believe that creating the type of report requested by the proponents would help the Company improve its environmental performance. Therefore, your Board recommends a vote against this proposal.