WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

FOR ANNUAL AND TRANSITION REPORTS

PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

(Mark One)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:   None

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this
Form 10-K.    x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definition
of  “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

American States Water Company

Golden State Water Company

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act)

The aggregate market value of the total voting common stock held by non-affiliates of American States Water Company was approximately $608,601,000 and $588,156,000 on June 29, 2007 and March 12, 2008, respectively. The closing price per Common Share on March 12, 2008, as quoted in the The Wall Street Journal website, was $34.11.  As of March 12, 2008, the number of Common Shares of American States Water Company, outstanding was 17,242,917. As of that same date, American States Water Company owned all 122 outstanding Common Shares of Golden State Water Company. The aggregate market value of the total voting stock held by non-affiliates of Golden State Water Company was zero on June 29, 2007 and March 12, 2008.

Documents Incorporated by Reference:

Portions of the Proxy Statement of American States Water Company will be subsequently filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as to Part III, Item Nos. 10, 11,  13 and 14 and portions of Item 12, in each case as specifically referenced herein.

AMERICAN STATES WATER COMPANY
and

GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY

FORM 10-K

INDEX

2

PART I

Item 1. Business

This annual report on Form 10-K is a combined report being filed by two separate Registrants: American States Water Company (hereinafter “AWR”), and Golden State Water Company (hereinafter “GSWC”). References in this report to “Registrant” are to AWR and GSWC, collectively, unless otherwise specified. GSWC makes no representations as to the information contained in this report relating to AWR and its subsidiaries, other than GSWC.

AWR makes its periodic reports, Form 10-Q and Form 10-K, and current reports, Form 8-K, available free of charge through its website, www.aswater.com, as soon as material is electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Such reports are also available on the SEC’s internet website at http://www.sec.gov. AWR also makes available free of charge its code of business conduct and ethics, its corporate governance guidelines and the charters of its Nominating and Governance Committee, its Compensation Committee, and its Audit and Finance Committee through its website or by calling (800) 999-4033. AWR and GSWC have filed the certification of officers required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2 to its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.

AWR submitted a CEO Certification to the New York Stock Exchange in June 2007 certifying that the Registrant was in compliance with the corporate governance rules of the New York Stock Exchange.

General

AWR is the parent company of GSWC, Chaparral City Water Company (“CCWC”) and American States Utility Services, Inc. (“ASUS”) and its subsidiaries (Fort Bliss Water Services Company (“FBWS”), Terrapin Utility Services, Inc. (“TUS”), Old Dominion Utility Services, Inc. (“ODUS”), Palmetto State Utility Services, Inc. (“PSUS”) and Old North Utility Services, Inc. (“ONUS”)). AWR was incorporated as a California corporation in 1998 as a holding company.  AWR has three reportable segments: water, electric and contracted services. Within the segments, AWR has three principal business units: water and electric service utility operations conducted through GSWC, a water-service utility operation conducted through CCWC, and a contracted services unit conducted through ASUS and its subsidiaries.

GSWC is a California public utility company engaged principally in the purchase, production and distribution of water. GSWC also distributes electricity in one customer service area. GSWC is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) and was incorporated as a California corporation on December 31, 1929. GSWC is organized into one electric customer service area and three water service regions operating within 75 communities in 10 counties in the State of California and provides water service in 21 customer service areas. Region I consists of 7 customer service areas in northern and central California; Region II consists of 4 customer service areas located in Los Angeles County; and Region III consists of 10 customer service areas in eastern Los Angeles County, and in Orange, San Bernardino and Imperial counties. GSWC also provides electric service to the City of Big Bear Lake and surrounding areas in San Bernardino County through its Bear Valley Electric Service (“BVES”) division.

GSWC served 254,546 water customers and 23,273 electric customers at December 31, 2007, or a total of 277,819 customers, compared with 277,218 total customers at December 31, 2006. GSWC’s utility operations exhibit seasonal trends. Although GSWC’s water utility operations have a diversified customer base, residential and commercial customers account for the majority of GSWC’s water sales and revenues. Revenues derived from commercial and residential water customers accounted for approximately 91% of total water revenues for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006.

CCWC is an Arizona public utility company serving 13,488 customers as of December 31, 2007, compared with 13,343 customers at December 31, 2006. Located in the town of Fountain Hills, Arizona and a portion of the City of Scottsdale, Arizona, the majority of CCWC’s customers are residential. The Arizona Corporation Commission (“ACC”) regulates CCWC.

ASUS contracts, either directly or through wholly-owned subsidiaries, with the U.S. government and others to provide water and wastewater services, including the operation and maintenance of water and wastewater systems and water marketing. ASUS commenced operation and maintenance of water and wastewater systems through a wholly-owned subsidiary at its first military base in Texas in October 2004. Since that date, ASUS commenced operation and maintenance of water and wastewater systems at military bases through wholly-owned subsidiaries in Maryland and Virginia in the first and second quarters of 2006 and in South Carolina in the first quarter of 2008.  ASUS is expected to commence operations at another base located in North Carolina during the first quarter of 2008. All of these contracts may be terminated, in whole or in part, prior to the end of the 50-year term for convenience of the U.S. government or as a result of default or nonperformance by the subsidiary performing the contract. In either event, the ASUS subsidiary is entitled to recover the remaining amount of its capital investment pursuant to the terms of a termination settlement with the U.S. government at the time of termination as provided in each of the contracts. The contract price for each of these contracts is subject to

3

redetermination two years after commencement of operations and every three years thereafter to the extent provided in each of the contracts. Prices are also subject to equitable adjustment based upon changes in circumstances and changes in wages and fringe benefits to the extent provided in each of the contracts. Registrant may refer to FBWS, ODUS, TUS, PSUS and ONUS collectively as the “Military Utility Privatization Subsidiaries” herein.

In September and early October of 2007, ASUS was awarded contracts to operate and maintain the water and wastewater systems at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and at Fort Bragg, North Carolina pursuant to 50-year contracts. These agreements are also subject to periodic price redetermination adjustments and modifications for changes in circumstances. ASUS through PSUS commenced operations at Fort Jackson on January 2, 2008 under a 50-year agreement.  ASUS through ONUS commenced operations at Fort Bragg under a 50-year agreement on March 1, 2008 following the expiration of its transition period.

ASUS and GSWC have been pursuing an opportunity to provide retail water services within the service area of the Natomas Central Mutual Water Company (“Natomas”). Natomas is a California mutual water company which currently provides water service to its shareholders, primarily for agricultural irrigation in portions of Sacramento and Sutter counties in northern California. In August 2004, Natomas and ASUS entered into a contract under which ASUS acts as the exclusive agent for marketing water that has become temporarily surplus to the internal needs of Natomas, and that arises under water rights permits and contracts owned or controlled by Natomas, to third parties outside the Natomas service area. On January 31, 2006, ASUS and Natomas entered into a water purchase and sale agreement under which ASUS will acquire 5,000 acre-feet of permanent Sacramento River water diversion rights from Natomas. Pursuant to the terms of this agreement, Natomas will sell, transfer and convey to ASUS, in perpetuity, water rights and entitlements to divert from the Sacramento River up to 5,000 acre-feet of water per year for consumptive use, subject to certain regulatory approvals. Terms of the acquisition, among other things, include a base price of $2,500 per acre-foot of water, with payments contingent on achievement of specific milestones and events over a 10-year period after first determining whether a need for the water exists in Sutter County. ASUS may use the water rights acquired from Natomas to serve existing customers, to re-sell to other beneficial users, or to pursue and serve expanded service territories.

Pursuant to the marketing services agreement described above, ASUS will attempt to arrange for the sale and transfer of temporarily surplus water for beneficial use beyond the Natomas service area.  Natomas will pay to ASUS a commission of 16% of the lease or sale price for any such water successfully marketed by ASUS. At the same time that the water purchase agreement was completed, Natomas and ASUS also entered into a settlement agreement that released Natomas from previously established reimbursement obligations under prior agreements.  In accordance with the marketing agreement, Natomas shareholders voted in December 2007 to approve the sale of 8,000 to 10,000 acre-feet per year of Natomas’ Central Valley Project water to the City of Folsom, subject to certain regulatory and environmental approvals.  The base price to be paid by Folsom is $4,000 per acre-foot.

GSWC and Natomas have also entered into an agreement under which GSWC agreed to purchase and Natomas agreed to sell up to 30,000 acre-feet per year of water to be used exclusively by GSWC to serve customers in Sutter County, California. Additionally, GSWC filed for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity with the CPUC on May 31, 2006 to provide retail water service in a portion of Sutter County, California within the Natomas service area. CPUC review of the application has been deferred pending completion of an environmental assessment for the proposed new water service. All of the agreements with Natomas are subject to receipt of various regulatory approvals required for their full implementation.

Certain financial information for each of AWR’s business segments: water distribution, electric distribution, and contracted services is set forth in Note 15 to the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of American States Water Company and its subsidiaries. AWR’s water and electric distribution segments are not dependent upon a single or only a few customers. The U.S. government is the largest customer for ASUS’ contracted services.

The revenue from most of AWR’s business segments is seasonal. The impact of seasonality on AWR’s businesses is discussed in more detail in Item 1A — “Risk Factors”.

4

Competition

The businesses of GSWC and CCWC are substantially free from direct and indirect competition with other public utilities, municipalities and other public agencies within their existing service territories. GSWC and CCWC compete with governmental agencies and other investor-owned utilities in connection with offering service to new real estate developments on the basis of financial terms, availability of water and ability to commence providing service on a timely basis. AWR’s other subsidiary, ASUS, actively competes for business with other investor-owned utilities, other third party providers of water and wastewater services, and governmental entities on the basis of price and quality of service.

Employee Relations

GSWC had 529 employees as of December 31, 2007 as compared to 516 at December 31, 2006.  Seventeen positions in GSWC’s Bear Valley Electric customer service area are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, which expires at the end of 2009, with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.  Seventy positions in GSWC’s Region II ratemaking district are covered by a collective bargaining agreement with the Utility Workers Union of America (“UWUA”), which expired in 2007. GSWC is continuing negotiations with the UWUA and in the meantime is working under the terms of the old contract.  GSWC has no other unionized employees.

AWR and its other subsidiaries had 43 employees as of December 31, 2007.  Five of the employees of a subsidiary of ASUS are covered by a collective bargaining agreement which will expire in 2008.

Forward-Looking Information

Certain matters discussed in this report (including the documents incorporated herein by reference) are forward-looking statements intended to qualify for the “safe harbor” from liability established by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements can generally be identified as such because the context of the statement will include words such as Registrant “believes,” “anticipates,” “expects” or words of similar import. Similarly, statements that describe Registrant’s future plans, objectives, estimates or goals are also forward-looking statements. Such statements address future events and conditions concerning ability to raise capital, capital expenditures, earnings, litigation, rates, water sales, water quality and other regulatory matters, adequacy of water supplies, the ability of GSWC and CCWC to recover electric, natural gas and water supply costs from ratepayers, contract operations, liquidity and capital resources, and accounting matters. Actual results in each case could differ materially from those currently anticipated in such statements, by reason of factors such as changes in utility regulation, including ongoing local, state and federal activities; recovery of regulatory assets not yet included in rates; future economic conditions, including changes in customer demand and changes in water and energy supply costs; future climatic conditions; delays in customer payments or price redeterminations on contracts executed by ASUS and its subsidiaries; and legislative, legal proceedings, regulatory and other circumstances affecting anticipated revenues and costs.

5

Item 1A — Risk Factors

You should carefully read the risks described below and other information in this Form 10-K in order to understand certain of the risks of our business.

Our business is heavily regulated and, as a result, decisions by regulatory agencies and changes in laws and regulations can significantly affect our business

Our revenues depend substantially on the rates and fees we charge our customers and the ability to recover our costs on a timely basis, including the ability to recover the costs of purchased water, groundwater assessments, electric power, natural gas, chemicals, water treatment, security at water facilities and preventative maintenance and emergency repairs.  Any delays by either the CPUC or the ACC in granting rate relief to cover increased operating and capital costs or delays in obtaining approval of ASUS’ requests for equitable adjustments or price redetermination from the U.S. government may adversely affect our financial performance.  We may file for interim rates in California in situations where there may be delays in granting final rate relief.  If the CPUC approves lower rates, the CPUC will require us to refund the difference between the interim rates and the rates approved by the CPUC to customers.

Regulatory decisions may also impact prospective revenues and earnings, affect the timing of the recognition of revenues and expenses and may overturn past decisions used in determining our revenues and expenses.  Management continually evaluates the anticipated recovery of regulatory assets, liabilities, and revenues subject to refund and provides for allowances and/or reserves as deemed necessary.  In the event that our assessment of the probability of recovery through the ratemaking process is incorrect, we will adjust the associated regulatory asset or liability to reflect the change in our assessment or any regulatory disallowances.  As of December 31, 2007, we had net regulatory assets of approximately $87.0 million, representing future revenues we expect to recover from customers through the ratemaking process.  A change in our evaluation of the probability of recovery of regulatory assets or a regulatory disallowance of all or a portion of our costs could have a material adverse effect on our financial results.

We are also in some cases required to estimate future expenses and in others, we are required to incur the expense before recovering costs.  As a result, our revenues and earnings may fluctuate depending on the accuracy of our estimates, timing of our investments or expenses or other factors.  If expenses increase significantly over a short period of time, we may experience delays in recovery of these expenses, the inability to recover carrying costs for these expenses and increased risks of regulatory disallowances or write-offs.

Regulatory agencies may also change their rules and policies which may adversely affect our profitability and cash flows.  Changes in policies of the U.S. government may also adversely affect our military base contract operations.  In certain circumstances, the U.S. government may be unwilling or unable to appropriate funds to pay costs mandated by changes in rules and policies of state regulatory agencies or may seek bids on work that we believe is covered by the contract awarded to us, thereby reducing the returns that we anticipated at the time of execution of the contract.  The U.S. government may also delay approval of requests for equitable adjustment or redetermination of prices which will adversely affect our anticipated rates of return.

Our earnings are greatly affected by weather during different seasons

The demand for water and electricity varies by season. Therefore, the results of operations for one period may not indicate results to be expected in another period.  For instance, most water consumption occurs during the third quarter of each year when weather tends to be hot and dry.  During this period, revenues and profitability are usually higher than in other quarters. Drought or unusually wet conditions may also adversely impact our revenues and profitability.  During a drought, we may experience both lower revenues due to consumer conservation efforts and higher water and operating costs due to supply shortages.  During unusually wet weather, our customers generally use less water.  The 2006/2007 water year was the driest ever recorded in southern California since records began in 1877.  It was the third driest year in Phoenix, Arizona since records began in 1948.

The demand for electricity in our electric customer service area is greatly affected by winter snows.  An increase in winter snows reduces the use of snowmaking machines at ski resorts in the Big Bear area and, as a result reduces our electric revenues.  Likewise, unseasonably warm weather during a skiing season may result in temperatures too high for snowmaking conditions, which also reduces our electric revenues.

6

Our liquidity and earnings may be adversely affected by changes in water supply costs

Water supplies are obtained from a variety of sources.  For example, water is pumped from aquifers within our service areas to meet a portion of the demands of our customers.  When water produced from wells is insufficient to meet customer demand or when such production is interrupted, we have purchased water from other suppliers.  As a result, our cost of providing, distributing and treating water for our customers’ use can vary significantly.  Furthermore, imported water wholesalers, such as the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (“MWD”) and the Central Arizona Project (“CAP”), may not always have an adequate supply of water to sell to us.

We have established water supply cost balancing accounts for expenses of purchased water, purchased power and groundwater related pump taxes for our water service areas in California.  Even under the water supply cost balancing account procedures, changes in water supply costs, such as those that occur due to changes in supply mix (purchased water volume vs. pumped water, for instance) compared to the authorized amount may directly affect our earnings.

Our liquidity and earnings could be adversely affected by increases in maintenance costs due to our aging infrastructure in California

Some of our systems in California are older than 50 years.  We are experiencing a high number of leaks, water quality and mechanical problems in some of these systems.   In addition, well and pump maintenance expenses continue to increase due to rising labor and material costs and more stringent water discharge requirements.  These costs can and do increase unexpectedly and in substantial amounts. During 2007, our maintenance expense increased by 27.6% at GSWC.

We include increases in maintenance costs in each general rate case for possible recovery.  However, we estimate the amount of expenses expected to be incurred during future years.  We may not recover overages from those estimates in rates, which may adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and liquidity.

Our liquidity and earnings may be adversely affected by our conservation efforts

Conservation by all customer classes is a top priority.  However, customer conservation can result in lower volumes of water sold.  We are also experiencing a decline in per residential customer water usage due to the use of more efficient household fixtures and appliances by residential consumers and a decline in household sizes.

Our regulated businesses are heavily dependent upon revenue generated from rates charged to our residential customers for the volume of water they use. The rates we charge for water are regulated by the CPUC and ACC and may not be unilaterally adjusted to reflect changes in demand. Declining usage also negatively impacts our long-term operating revenues if we are unable to secure rate increases or if growth in the residential customer base does not occur to the extent necessary to offset the per customer residential usage decline.

Our operating costs have increased and are expected to continue to increase as a result of groundwater contamination

Our operations are impacted by groundwater contamination in certain service territories.  We have taken a number of steps to address contamination, including the removal of wells from service, decreasing the amount of groundwater pumped from wells in order to slow the movement of plumes of contaminated water, constructing water treatment facilities and securing alternative sources of supply from other areas not affected by the contamination.

In some cases, potentially responsible parties have reimbursed us for our costs.  In other cases, we have taken legal action against parties believed to be potentially responsible for the contamination.  To date, the CPUC has permitted us to establish memorandum accounts in California for potential recovery of these types of costs.  As a result, our memorandum and water supply balancing accounts are high by historical standards.  We can give no assurance regarding the outcome of litigation arising out of contamination or our ability to recover these costs in the future.

Persons who are potentially responsible for causing the contamination of groundwater supplies have also been increasingly asserting claims against water distributors on a variety of theories and have thus far brought the water distributors (including us) within the class of potentially responsible parties in federal court actions pending in Los Angeles County.  This increases the costs of seeking recovery from the potentially responsible parties and the risks associated with seeking recovery of these costs.  Management believes that rate recovery, proper insurance coverage and reserves are in place to appropriately manage these types of claims.  However, such claims, if ultimately resolved unfavorably to us, could, in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

7

Our costs involved in maintaining water quality and complying with environmental regulation have increased, and are expected to continue to increase

Our capital and operating costs have increased substantially as a result of increases in environmental regulation arising from improved detection technology and increases in the cost of disposing of residuals from our water treatment plants, upgrading and building new water treatment plants, monitoring compliance activities and removing our wells from service when necessary to address contamination issues.

Our regulated utilities may be able to recover these costs through the ratemaking process.  We may also be able to recover these costs under contractual arrangements.  In certain circumstances, costs may be recoverable from parties responsible or potentially responsible for contamination, either voluntarily or through specific court action.  We may incur significant costs in connection with recovery efforts and moreover, recovery of these types of costs depends upon a variety of factors, including approval of rate increases, the willingness of potentially responsible parties to settle litigation and otherwise address the contamination and the extent and magnitude of the contamination.  We can give no assurance regarding the adequacy of any such recovery to offset such costs.

The Military Utility Privatization Subsidiaries are also subject to increasingly stringent environmental regulations. The contracts provide various mechanisms for recovery of the costs, including increasing revenues through change in conditions provisions and equitable adjustment procedures.  Our contracts with the U.S. government are, however, subject to the Anti-Deficiency Act. As a result, our recovery of these costs may depend upon Congressional action to appropriate funds.

The adequacy of our water supplies depends upon a variety of uncontrolled factors

The adequacy of our water supplies varies from year to year depending upon a variety of factors, including:

·                  Rainfall, runoff, flood control and availability of reservoir storage

·                  Availability of Colorado River water and imported water from northern California

·                  The amount of useable water stored in reservoirs and groundwater basins

·                  The amount of water used by our customers and others

·                  Water quality

·                  Legal limitations on production, diversion, storage, conveyance and use

Population growth and increases in the amount of water used have caused increased stress on surface supplies and groundwater basins. The importation of water from the Colorado River, one of GSWC’s important sources of supply has decreased due to implementation of the California 4.4 Plan which limits the amount of water that the MWD is entitled to take from the Colorado River.   In addition, new court-ordered pumping restrictions on water obtained from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are expected to decrease the amount of water MWD is able to import from northern California.  We are cooperating with MWD to secure additional supplies from conservation, desalination and water exchanges with agricultural water users, but it is not known to what extent these efforts will be successful and sustainable.

CCWC obtains its water supply from operating wells and from the Colorado River through the CAP.  CCWC’s water supply may be subject to interruption or reduction if there is an interruption or reduction in water supplies available to CAP.  In addition, CCWC’s ability to provide water service to new real estate developments is dependent upon CCWC’s ability to meet the requirements of the Arizona Department of Water Resources regarding the Company’s assured water supply account.

Water shortages may affect us in a variety of ways:

·                  They may adversely affect our supply mix, for instance, causing more reliance upon more expensive water sources

·                  They may adversely affect our operating costs, for instance, by increasing the cost of producing water from more highly contaminated aquifers

·                  They may result in an increase in our capital expenditures, for example by requiring the construction of pipelines to connect to alternative sources of supply, new wells to replace those that are no longer in service or are otherwise inadequate to meet the needs of our customers, reservoirs and other facilities to conserve or reclaim water

·                  They may adversely affect the volume of water sold as a result of mandatory or voluntary conservation efforts by customers

8

We may be able to recover increased operating and capital costs for our regulated systems through the ratemaking process. We may also recover costs from certain third parties that may be responsible, or potentially responsible, for groundwater contamination.

Our liquidity, and in certain circumstances, earnings, may be adversely affected by increases in electricity and natural gas prices in California

We purchase most of our electric energy sold to customers in our electric customer service area from others under contracts that expire at the end of 2008 at an average price of $74.65 per megawatt per hour (“MWh”).  In addition to the purchased power contracts, we purchase additional energy from the spot market to meet peak demand.  We may sell surplus power to the spot market during times of reduced energy demand.  We also operate a natural gas-fueled 8.4 megawatt (“MW”) generator in its electric service area.

During the energy crisis in late 2000 and 2001, we incurred approximately $23.1 million of additional energy purchase costs that were not covered in rates. The CPUC authorized a surcharge of 2.2¢ per kilowatt hour from our customers through August 2011 to recover this under-collected balance.  We have recovered approximately $17.1 million of the $23.1 million incurred during the energy crisis through this surcharge as of December 31, 2007.  In addition, the CPUC authorized recovery of energy purchase costs from customers, up to an annual weighted average cost of $77 per MWh each year through August 2011.  We are required to write-off costs in excess of this cap. As a result, we are at risk for increases in spot market prices of electricity purchased and for decreases in spot market prices for electricity sold.  Since the energy crisis in late 2001, we have added approximately $12.3 million of power costs in excess of the amounts authorized in rates to our electric balancing account, resulting primarily from increases in costs associated with the transportation of energy.  At December 31, 2007, approximately $18.3 million remains as an under-collection in the electric supply cost balancing account resulting from these activities.

Unexpected generator downtime, or a failure to perform by any of the counterparties to the electric and natural gas purchase contracts could further increase our exposure to fluctuating natural gas and electric prices.

Changes in electricity prices also affect the unrealized gains and losses on our block forward purchased power contracts that qualify as derivative instruments as we adjust the asset or liability on these contracts to reflect the fair market value of the contracts at the end of each month.  As a result of decreases in energy prices as of December 31, 2007, we recorded a cumulative unrealized loss of $1.6 million related to these contracts. We will recognize this cumulative unrealized loss as additions to earnings in 2008 by December 31, 2008 when the contract ends.

Our business requires significant capital expenditures

The utility business is capital intensive.  On an annual basis, we spend significant sums of money for additions to or replacement of our property, plant and equipment.  During the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, we spent $49.9 million, $66.6 million and $71.2 million, respectively, for these purposes.  We estimate capital expenditures for our regulated utilities for calendar year 2008 to be approximately $55.0 million to $60.0 million.

ASUS expects to incur capital expenditures of approximately $22.0 million in 2008.  To the extent that the U.S. government does not reimburse us for these expenditures as the work is performed, the U.S. government will repay us over time with interest.

We obtain funds for these capital projects from operations, contributions by developers and others and advances from developers (which are repaid over a period of time at no interest).  We also periodically borrow money or issue equity for these purposes.  In addition, we have a syndicated bank credit facility that is partially used for these purposes.  We cannot provide assurance that these sources will continue to be adequate or that the cost of funds will remain at levels permitting us to earn a reasonable rate of return.

The assets of our regulated businesses are subject to condemnation

Municipalities and other government subdivisions may, in certain circumstances, seek to acquire certain of our assets through eminent domain proceedings.  It is generally our practice to contest these proceedings which may be costly and may divert the attention of management from the operation of its business.  If a municipality or other government subdivision succeeds in acquiring our assets, there is a risk we will not receive adequate compensation for the assets acquired or be able to recover all charges associated with divesting these assets.

9

Our operations are geographically concentrated in California

Although we own water and wastewater facilities in a number of states, our operations are concentrated in California, particularly southern California.  As a result, our financial results are largely subject to weather, political, water supply, labor, utility cost, regulatory and other economic risks affecting California.

We operate in areas subject to natural disasters or that may be the target of terrorist activities

We operate in areas that are prone to earthquakes, fires, mudslides and other natural disasters.  While we maintain insurance policies to help reduce our financial exposure, a significant seismic event in Southern California, where our operations are concentrated, or other natural disasters in California could adversely impact our ability to deliver water and adversely affect our costs of operations.  The CPUC has historically allowed utilities to establish a catastrophic event memorandum account as another possible mechanism to recover these costs.

Terrorists could seek to disrupt service to our customers by targeting our assets. We also may be prevented from providing water and wastewater services in the military bases in times of military crisis affecting these bases.  We have invested in additional security for facilities throughout our regulated service areas to mitigate the risks of terrorist activities.

Our failure to comply with restrictive covenants under our long-term debt agreements and credit facility could trigger prepayment obligations

Our failure to comply with the restrictive covenants under our long-term debt agreements and credit facility could result in an event of default, which, if not cured or waived, could result in us being required to repay or refinance (on less favorable terms) these borrowings before their due dates.  If we are forced to repay or refinance (on less favorable terms) these borrowings, our results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected by increased costs and rates.

We are a holding company that depends on cash flow from GSWC to meet our financial obligations and to pay dividends on our common shares

As a holding company, our subsidiaries conduct substantially all operations and our only significant assets are investments in our subsidiaries. This means that we are dependent on distributions of funds from our subsidiaries to meet our debt service obligations and to pay dividends on our common shares.  More than 90% of our earnings is derived from the operations of GSWC.  Moreover, none of our other subsidiaries has paid any dividends to us during the past three years.  As a result, we are largely dependent on cash flow from GSWC to meet our financial obligations and to pay dividends on our common shares.

Our subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities and generally have no obligation to pay any amounts due on our debt.  Our subsidiaries only pay dividends if and when declared by the subsidiary Board.  Moreover, GSWC is obligated to give first priority to its own capital requirements and to maintain a capital structure consistent with that determined to be reasonable by the CPUC in its most recent decision on capital structure, in order that ratepayers not be adversely affected by the holding company structure.  Furthermore, our right to receive cash or other assets in the unlikely event of liquidation or reorganization of GSWC is generally subject to the prior claims of creditors of that subsidiary.  If we are unable to obtain funds from GSWC in a timely manner, we may be unable to meet our financial obligations, make additional investments or pay dividends.

Additional Risks Associated with our Contracted Services

                We derive revenues from contract operations primarily from the operation and maintenance of water and wastewater systems at military bases and the construction of water and wastewater improvements to the infrastructure on these bases.  As a result, these operations are subject to risks that are different than those of our regulated utility operations.

                Our operations and maintenance contracts on military bases create certain risks that are different from that of our regulated utility operations

                We have entered into contracts to provide water and wastewater services at military bases pursuant to 50-year contracts, subject to termination, in whole or in part, for the convenience of the U.S. government.  In addition, the U.S. government may stop work under the terms of the contracts, delay performance of our obligations under the contracts or modify the contracts at its convenience.

Our contract pricing was based on a number of assumptions, including assumptions about prices and availability of labor, equipment and materials. We may be unable to recover all costs if any of these assumptions are inaccurate or if all costs that we may incur in connection with performing the work were not considered.  Our operations and maintenance

10

contracts are also subject to periodic price adjustments at the time of price redetermination or in connection with requests for equitable adjustments or other changes permitted by terms of the contracts.  The contract price for each of these contracts is subject to redetermination two years after commencement of operations and every three years thereafter to the extent provided in each of the contracts. Prices are also subject to equitable adjustment based upon changes in circumstances and changes in wages and fringe benefits to the extent provided in each of the contracts.  However, we have experienced delays in the redetermination of prices following completion of the first two years of operation and delays in obtaining an equitable adjustment of prices for the significantly higher infrastructure at Fort Bliss than that described by the U.S. government in its request for proposal.

                We are subject to audits, cost review and investigations by contracting oversight agencies.  During the course of an audit, the oversight agency may disallow costs.  Such cost disallowances may result in adjustments to previously reported revenues.

                Payment under these contracts is subject to appropriations by Congress.  We may experience delays in receiving payment or delays in redetermination of prices or other price adjustments due to cancelled or delayed appropriations specific to our projects or reductions in government spending for the military or generally.  Appropriations and the timing of payment, may be influenced by, among other things, the state of the economy, competing political priorities, budget constraints, the timing and amount of tax receipts and the overall level of government expenditures for the military.

                In addition, we must maintain the proper management of water and wastewater facilities, employ state-certified and other qualified employees to support the operation of these facilities and otherwise comply with contract requirements.

Risks associated with the collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater create risks that are different, in some respects, from that of our water utility operations

The wastewater collection, treatment and disposal operations of our Military Utility Privatization Subsidiaries are subject to substantial regulation and involve significant environmental risks. If collection or sewage systems fail, overflow or do not operate properly, untreated wastewater or other contaminants could spill onto nearby properties or into nearby streams and rivers, causing damage to persons or property, injury to aquatic life and economic damages, which may not be recoverable in fees. This risk is most acute during periods of substantial rainfall or flooding, which are the main causes of sewer overflow and system failure. Liabilities resulting from such damage could adversely and materially affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. In the event that we are deemed liable for any damage caused by overflow, our losses might not be covered by insurance policies and such we find it difficult to secure insurance for this business in the future at acceptable rates.

                Our contracts for the construction of infrastructure improvements on military bases create risks that are different, in some respects, from that of our operations and maintenance contracts

                We have has entered into contracts for the construction of infrastructure improvements to water and wastewater systems at military bases.  Many of these contracts are fixed-price contracts.  Under fixed-price contracts, we benefit from cost savings and earnings, but are generally unable to recover any cost overruns to the approved contract price.  Under extenuating circumstances, the U.S. government has approved increased cost change orders.

                We recognize revenues from these types of contracts using the percentage-of-completion method of accounting.  This accounting practice results in our recognizing contract revenues and earnings ratably over the contract term in proportion to our incurrence of contract costs.  The earnings or losses recognized on individual contracts are based on periodic estimates of contract revenues, costs and profitability as the construction projects progress.

                We establish prices for these types of fixed-price contracts based, in part, on cost estimates that are subject to a number of assumptions, including assumptions regarding future economic conditions.  If these estimates prove inaccurate or circumstances change, cost overruns could have a material adverse effect on our contracted business operations and results of operations for contracted services.

                We may be adversely affected by disputes with the U.S. government regarding our performance of contract services on military bases

If there is a dispute with the U.S. government regarding performance under these contracts or the amounts owed to us, the U.S. government may delay, reject or withhold payment, or assert its right to offset damages against amounts owed to us.  If we are unable to collect amounts owed to us on a timely basis or the U.S. government asserts its offset rights, profits and cash flows will be adversely affected.

11

                If we fail to comply with the terms of one or more of our U.S. government contracts, other agreements with the U.S. government or U.S. government regulations and statutes, we could be suspended or barred from future U.S. government contracts for a period of time and be subject to possible damages, fines and penalties and damage to our reputation in the water and wastewater industry.

                We depend, to some extent, upon subcontractors to assist us in the performance of contracted services on military bases

                We rely, to some extent, on subcontractors to assist us in the operation and maintenance of the water and wastewater systems at a number of military bases, subject to our existing contracts with the U.S. government.  The failure of any of these subcontractors to perform services for us in accordance with the terms of our contracts with the U.S. government could result in the termination of our contracts to provide wastewater services at these bases, a loss of revenues and increases in costs to correct, or otherwise as a result of, a subcontractor’s performance failures.  In addition, we are required to make a good faith effort to achieve our small business subcontracting plan goals pursuant to U.S. government regulation. If we fail to use good faith efforts to meet these goals, the U.S. government may assess damages against us.  The U.S. government has the right to offset claimed damages against any amounts owed to us.

                We also rely on third-party manufacturers as well as third-party subcontractors to complete our construction projects. To the extent that we cannot engage subcontractors or acquire equipment or materials, our ability to complete a project in a timely fashion or at a profit may be impaired.  If the amount we are paid for these projects exceeds the amount we have estimated in our bid, we could experience losses in the performance of these contracts.  In addition, if a subcontractor or manufacturer is unable to deliver its services, equipment or materials according to the negotiated terms for any reason, including the deterioration of its financial condition, we may be required to purchase the services, equipment or materials from another source at a higher price.  This may reduce the profit to be realized or result in a loss on a project for which the services, equipment or materials were needed.

                If these subcontractors fail to perform services to be provided to us or fail to provide us with the proper equipment or materials, we may be penalized for their failure to perform.

We continue to incur costs associated with the expansion of our contract activities

                We continue to incur additional costs in connection with the expansion of our contract operations associated with the preparation of bids and the negotiation of the terms of new contracts.  Our ability to recover these costs and to earn a profit on our contract operations will depend upon the extent to which we are successful in obtaining new contracts and recovering those costs and other costs from new contract revenues.

Item 1B — Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

12

Item 2 - Properties

Electric Properties

GSWC’s electric properties are all located in the Big Bear area of San Bernardino County, California. As of December 31, 2007, GSWC owned and operated 29 miles of overhead 34.5 kilovolt (“kv”) transmission lines, 1 mile of underground 34.5 kv transmission lines, 176 miles of 4.16 kv or 2.4 kv distribution lines, 53 miles of underground cable, 14 sub-stations and a natural gas-fueled 8.4 MW peaking generation facility.  GSWC also has franchises, easements and other rights of way for the purpose of constructing and using poles, wires and other appurtenances for transmitting electricity.

Water Properties

As of December 31, 2007, GSWC’s physical properties consisted of water transmission and distribution systems which included 2,724 miles of pipeline together with services, meters and fire hydrants and approximately 430 parcels of land, generally less than 1 acre each, on which are located wells, pumping plants, reservoirs and other water utility facilities, including five surface water treatment plants.  GSWC also has franchises, easements and other rights of way for the purpose of constructing and using pipes and appurtenances for transmitting and distributing water.

As of December 31, 2007, GSWC owned 243 wells. All wells are equipped with pumps with an aggregate production capacity of approximately 257 million gallons per day. GSWC has 64 connections to the water distribution facilities of the MWD and other municipal water agencies. GSWC’s storage reservoirs and tanks have an aggregate capacity of approximately 111 million gallons. GSWC owns no dams in its customer service areas. The following table provides, in greater detail, selected water utility plant of GSWC for each of its water regions:

* Reservoir capacity is measured in thousands of gallons. Mains are in miles.

(1) GSWC has additional reservoir capacity in its Claremont system, through an exclusive right to use all of one 8 million gallon reservoir, one-half of another 8 million gallon reservoir, and one-half of a treatment plant’s capacity, all owned by Three Valleys Municipal Water District.

As of December 31, 2007, CCWC’s physical properties consisted of water transmission and distribution systems, which included 184 miles of pipeline, together with services, meters, fire hydrants, wells, reservoirs with a combined storage capacity of 7.55 million gallons and other water utility facilities including a surface water treatment plant, which treats water from the CAP.

Adjudicated and Other Water Rights

GSWC

GSWC owns numerous water rights in California, as shown in the table below.  Water rights are divided between groundwater and surface water, and groundwater rights are further subject to classification as either adjudicated or unadjudicated rights.  Adjudicated rights have been subjected to comprehensive litigation in the courts, are typically quantified and are actively managed for optimization and sustainability of the resource.  Unadjudicated groundwater rights have not been quantified and are not subject to predetermined limitations, but are measured by maximum historical usage.  Surface water rights are quantified and managed by the State Water Resources Control Board, unless they originated prior to 1914, in which case they resemble unadjudicated groundwater rights.  A total of 118,109 acre-feet per year (“AFY”) of water rights are own by GSWC’s three regions as follows:

13

CCWC

CCWC has an assured water supply designation, by decision and order of the Arizona Department of Water Resources (“ADWR”). Pursuant to a decision issued by ADWR on April 7, 2004, CCWC has demonstrated the physical, legal and continuous availability of CAP water and groundwater, in an aggregate volume of 11,759 acre-feet per year for a minimum of 100 years. The 11,759 acre-feet is comprised of existing CAP allocation of 8,909 acre-feet per year, 350 acre-feet per year groundwater allowance, incidental recharge credits of 500 acre-feet per year, and a Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District contract of 2,000 acre-feet per year.

Office Buildings

Registrant’s general headquarters are housed in a single-story office building located in San Dimas, California. The land and the building are owned by GSWC. GSWC also owns and/or leases certain facilities housing regional, district and customer service offices. CCWC owns its primary office space in Fountain Hills, Arizona. ASUS leases an office facility in Costa Mesa, California.

Mortgage and Other Liens

As of December 31, 2007, GSWC had no mortgage debt outstanding, encumbrances or liens securing indebtedness.

As of December 31, 2007, substantially all of the utility plant of CCWC was pledged to secure its Industrial Development Authority Bonds, which among other things, restricts CCWC’s ability to incur debt and make liens, sell, lease or dispose of assets, or merge with another corporation, and pay dividends.

As of December 31, 2007, neither AWR nor ASUS or any of its subsidiaries had any mortgage debt or liens securing indebtedness, outstanding.  However, under the terms of certain debt of AWR and GSWC, AWR and GSWC are prohibited from issuing any secured debt, without providing equal and ratable security to the holders of this existing debt.

Condemnation of Properties

                The laws of the State of California and the State of Arizona provide for the acquisition of public utility property by governmental agencies through their power of eminent domain, also known as condemnation, where doing so is necessary and in the public interest. In addition, however, the laws of the State of California provide: (i) that the owner of utility property may contest whether the condemnation is actually necessary and in the public interest, and (ii) that the owner is entitled to receive the fair market value of its property if the property is ultimately taken.

                Although the City of Claremont, California (the “City”) located in GSWC’s Region III, has not initiated the formal condemnation process pursuant to California law, the City has expressed various concerns to GSWC about the rates charged by GSWC and the effectiveness of the CPUC’s rate-setting procedures. The City hired a consultant to perform an appraisal of the value of GSWC’s water system serving the City. The value was estimated in 2004 by the City’s consultant at $40—$45 million. GSWC disagrees with the consultant’s valuation assessment. As of December 31, 2007, management believes that the fair market value of the Claremont water system exceeds the $38.0 million recorded net book value and also exceeds the consultant’s estimates of its value. In addition, GSWC believes the value of its groundwater rights has significant value.  The Claremont City Council held a project priorities workshop in April 2007. The council members agreed that the acquisition of GSWC’s water system was to remain a priority and authorized staff to obtain updated appraisals for the value of the water systems. Requests for proposals have been sent to consulting firms by the City.  In a recent meeting held in February 2008, the Claremont City Council stated that they had decided to authorize additional studies of the acquisition of GSWC’s water system.

                The Town of Apple Valley (the “Town”) is located in GSWC’s Region III and was evaluating the potential takeover of GSWC’s Apple Valley water systems as well as the water systems of another utility serving the Town. On March 13, 2007, the Town Council voted to formally abandon its review of the potential acquisitions. GSWC was notified of the Town Council’s action by a letter from the Town Manager dated April 3, 2007.

                Except for the City of Claremont and the Town of Apple Valley, Registrant has not been involved within the last three years in activities related to the potential condemnation of any of its other customer service areas. No formal condemnation proceedings have been filed against any of the Registrant’s service areas during the past three years.

14

Item 3 - Legal Proceedings

Water Quality-Related Litigation:

                Perchlorate and/or Volatile Organic Compounds (“VOC”) have been detected in five wells servicing GSWC’s South San Gabriel System. GSWC filed suit in federal court, along with two other affected water purveyors and the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority (“WQA”), against some of those allegedly responsible for the contamination of two of these wells. Some of the other potential defendants settled with GSWC, other water purveyors and the WQA (the “Water Entities”) on VOC related issues prior to the filing of the lawsuit. In response to the filing of the lawsuit, the Potentially Responsible Party (“PRP”) defendants filed motions to dismiss the suit or strike certain portions of the suit. The judge issued a ruling on April 1, 2003 granting in part and denying in part the PRP’s motions. A key ruling of the court was that the water purveyors, including GSWC, by virtue of their ownership of wells contaminated with hazardous chemicals are themselves PRPs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).

                GSWC has, pursuant to permission of the court, amended its suit to claim certain affirmative defenses as an “innocent” party under CERCLA. Registrant is presently unable to predict the outcome of this ruling on its ability to fully recover from the PRPs future costs associated with the treatment of these wells. In this same suit, the PRPs have filed cross-complaints against the Water Entities, the MWD, the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster and others on the theory that they arranged for and did transport contaminated water into the Main San Gabriel Basin for use by GSWC and the other two affected water purveyors and for other related claims.

                On August 29, 2003, the US Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued Unilateral Administrative Orders (“UAO”) against 41 parties deemed responsible for polluting the groundwater in that portion of the San Gabriel Valley from which two of GSWC’s impacted wells draw water. GSWC was not named as a party to the UAO. The UAO requires that these parties remediate the contamination. The judge in the lawsuit has appointed a special master to oversee mandatory settlement discussions between the PRPs and the Water Entities. EPA is also conducting settlement discussions with several PRPs regarding the UAO. The Water Entities and EPA are working to coordinate their settlement discussions under the special master in order to arrive at a complete resolution of all issues affecting the lawsuit and the UAO. Settlements with a number of the PRPs are being finalized; however, Registrant is presently unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these settlement discussions.

Santa Maria Groundwater Basin Adjudication:

In 1997, the Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District (“plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit against multiple defendants, including GSWC, the City of Santa Maria, and several other public water purveyors. The plaintiff’s lawsuit sought an adjudication of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin (the “Basin”). A stipulated settlement of the lawsuit has been reached, subject to CPUC approval. The settlement, among other things, if approved by the CPUC, would preserve GSWC’s historical pumping rights and secure supplemental water rights for use in case of drought or other reductions in the natural yield of the Basin.  GSWC, under the stipulation, has a right to 10,000 acre-feet of groundwater replenishment provided by the Twitchell Project, a storage and flood control reservoir project operated by the Santa Maria Valley Conservation District.  A monitoring and annual reporting program has been established to allow the parties to responsibly manage the Basin and to respond to shortage conditions.  If severe water shortage conditions are found over a period of five years, the management area engineer will make findings and recommendations to alleviate such shortages.  In the unlikely case that the Basin experiences severe shortage conditions, the court has the authority to limit GSWC’s groundwater production to 10,248 acre-feet per year, based on developed water in the Basin.

On February 11, 2008, the court issued its final judgment, which approves and incorporates the stipulation.  The judgment awards GSWC prescriptive rights to groundwater against the non-stipulating parties.  In addition, the judgment grants GSWC the right to use the Basin for temporary storage and to recapture 45 percent of the return flows that are generated from its importation of State Water Project water.  Pursuant to this judgment, the court retains jurisdiction over all of the parties to make supplemental orders or to amend the judgment as necessary.

Other Litigation:

Two former officers of GSWC filed a lawsuit against both AWR and GSWC alleging among other things, wrongful termination and retaliation against the former officers.  The lawsuits were filed on November 15, 2007 in the Los Angeles Superior Court: Conway, et al. v. Golden State Water Company, et al., Case No. BC380721.  Management believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Based on our understanding of all the claims, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on GSWC’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

15

Registrant is also subject to ordinary routine litigation incidental to its business. Other than those disclosed above, no other legal proceedings are pending, which require disclosure. Management believes that rate recovery, proper insurance coverage and reserves are in place to insure against property, general liability and workers’ compensation claims incurred in the ordinary course of business

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders through the solicitation of proxies or otherwise during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year covered by this report.

16

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Stock Performance Graph

The graph below compares American States Water Company’s cumulative five-year total shareholder return on  Common Shares with the cumulative total returns of the S & P 500 index and a customized peer group of six companies that includes: Artesian Resources Corp., California Water Service, Connecticut Water, Middlesex Water Company, SJW Corp. and Southwest Water Company. The graph tracks the performance of a $100 investment in our Common Shares, in the index and in the peer group (with the reinvestment of all dividends) from December 31, 2002 to December 31, 2007.

The stock price performance included in this graph is not necessarily indicative of future stock price performance.

17

Market Information Relating to Common Shares

Common Shares of American States Water Company are traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol AWR. The intra-day high and low NYSE prices on the Common Shares for each quarter during the past two years, as reported by the Wall Street Journal’s website, were:

The closing price of the Common Shares of American States Water Company on the NYSE as reported on the Wall Street Journal’s website on March 12, 2008 was $34.11.

Approximate Number of Holders of Common Shares

As of March 12, 2008, there were 3,134 holders of record of the 17,242,917 outstanding Common Shares of American States Water Company. AWR owns all of the authorized and outstanding Common Shares of GSWC, CCWC and ASUS. ASUS owns all of the outstanding stock of the Military Utility Privatization Subsidiaries.

Frequency and Amount of Any Dividends Declared and Dividend Restrictions

For the last two years, AWR has paid dividends on its Common Shares on March 1, June 1, September 1 and December 1. The following table lists the amount of dividends paid on Common Shares of American States Water Company:

AWR’s ability to pay dividends is subject to the requirement in the Company’s $85 million revolving credit facility for AWR to maintain compliance with all covenants described in footnote (15) to the table in the section entitled “Contractual Obligations, Commitments and Off Balance Sheet Arrangements” included in Part II, Item 7 in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation. GSWC’s maximum ability to pay dividends is restricted by certain Note Agreements to the sum of $21 million plus 100% of consolidated net income from certain dates plus the aggregate net cash proceeds received from capital stock offerings or other instruments convertible into capital stock from various dates. Under the most restrictive of the Note Agreements, $222.7 million was available from GSWC to pay dividends to AWR as of December 31, 2007. GSWC is also prohibited under the terms of a senior note issued in October 2005 from paying dividends if, after giving effect to the dividend, its total indebtedness to capitalization ratio (as defined) would be more than .6667 to 1.  GSWC would have to issue additional debt of $260.9 million to invoke this covenant as of December 31, 2007.

The ability of AWR, ASUS and GSWC to pay dividends is also restricted by California law. Under restrictions of the California tests, approximately $120.3 million of AWR’s retained earnings was available to pay dividends to common shareholders at December 31, 2007. Approximately $115.3 million was available from the retained earnings of GSWC at December 31, 2007 to pay dividends to AWR.  At December 31, 2007, ASUS was unable to pay dividends to AWR under the California tests.

18

CCWC is subject to contractual restrictions on its ability to pay dividends. CCWC’s maximum ability to distribute dividends is limited to maintenance of no more than 55% debt in the capital structure for the quarter immediately preceding the distribution. The ability of CCWC to pay dividends is also restricted under Arizona law. Under restrictions of the Arizona tests, approximately $7.1 million was available to pay dividends to AWR at December 31, 2007. See footnote (6) to the table in the section entitled “Contractual Obligations and Other Commitments” included in Part II, Item 7 in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operation.

AWR paid $16.3 million in common dividends to shareholders for the year ended December 31, 2007, as compared to $15.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. GSWC paid dividends of $17.2 million to AWR in 2007 and 2006. CCWC and ASUS did not pay any dividends to AWR in 2007 or 2006.

Other Information

The shareholders of AWR have approved the material features of all equity compensation plans under which AWR directly issues equity securities. AWR did not directly issue any unregistered equity securities during 2007.

The following table provides information about Company repurchases of its Common Shares during the fourth quarter of 2007:

(1)             None of the Common Shares was purchased pursuant to any publicly announced stock repurchase program.

(2)             Of this amount, 4,500 Common Shares were acquired on the open market for employees pursuant to the Company’s 401(k) Plan.  The remainder of the Common Shares were acquired on the open market for participants in the Company’s Common Share Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan.

(3)             None of these plans contain a maximum number of Common Shares that may be purchased in the open market under the plans.

19

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

(1)            In accordance with Emerging Issues Task Force No. 03-06, “Participating Securities and the Two-Class Method under FASB Statement No. 128” which was effective in the second quarter of 2004, AWR uses the “two-class” method of computing EPS for the affects of participating securities. The “two-class” method is an earnings allocation formula that determines EPS for each class of common stock and participating security. AWR has participating securities related to stock options and stock units that earn dividend equivalents on an equal basis with Common Shares. Registrant determined that the effect on 2004 and 2003 was immaterial. Basic EPS in 2007, 2006 and 2005 was computed, utilizing the “two-class” method, by dividing net income available for common shareholders by the weighted-average number of Common Shares outstanding. Net income available for common shareholders excluding earnings available and allocated to participating securities, was $27,723,000, $22,623,000 and $26,468,000 for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.

(2)            Effective December 31, 2006, Registrant adopted SFAS No. 158, “Employer’s Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans — an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R)”.  Because pensions and other postretirement costs have historically been recovered through rates, upon implementing SFAS No. 158, a regulatory asset has been recorded for the costs that would otherwise be charged to common shareholder’s equity in accordance with SFAS No. 158.  At December 31, 2007 and 2006, $11.4 million and $22.8 million, respectively, has been recorded as a regulatory asset related to pension and other postretirement costs, with a corresponding amount to pension and postretirement liabilities.  Decreases in 2007, were caused by increases in the discount rates used to measure the pension and postretirement obligations.

20

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation

The following discussion and analysis provides information on AWR’s consolidated operations and assets and where necessary, includes specific references to AWR’s individual segments and/or other subsidiaries: GSWC, CCWC, ASUS and its subsidiaries.

Overview

                Registrant’s revenues, operating income, and cash flows are earned primarily through delivering potable water to homes and businesses through approximately 2,900 miles of water distribution pipelines. Rates charged to customers of GSWC and CCWC are determined by the CPUC and ACC, respectively. These rates are intended to allow recovery of operating costs and a reasonable rate of return on capital. Factors recently affecting financial performance include the process and timing of setting rates charged to customers; the ability to recover, and the process for recovering in rates, the costs of distributing water and electricity; weather; the impact of increased water quality standards on the cost of operations and capital expenditures; pressures on water supply caused by population growth, more stringent water quality standards, deterioration in water quality and water supply from a variety of causes; capital expenditures needed to upgrade water systems and increased costs and risks associated with litigation relating to water quality and water supply, including suits initiated by Registrant to protect its water supply and delays in receiving payments from the U.S. government and the filing for redetermination and equitable adjustment of prices under contracts with the U.S. government.

                Registrant plans to continue to seek additional rate increases in future years to recover operating and supply costs and receive reasonable returns on invested capital. Capital expenditures in future years are expected to remain at much higher levels than depreciation expense. Cash solely from operations is not expected to be sufficient to fund Registrant’s needs for capital expenditures, dividends, investments in Registrant’s contract business and other cash requirements. Registrant expects to fund a portion of these needs through a combination of debt and common stock offerings in the ensuing years. AWR expects to issue equity in 2008, which will be included in the rate setting process.

                Operating revenues and income from contracted services at ASUS and its subsidiaries are earned primarily from the operation and maintenance of water and wastewater systems for the U.S. government at various military bases. All of the operations and maintenance contracts with the U.S. government are 50-year firm, fixed-price contracts with prospective price redeterminations. ASUS also may generate revenues from the construction of infrastructure improvements at these bases pursuant to the terms of these 50-year contracts or pursuant to supplemental contracts. Revenues generated by contract operations are primarily dependent on these new business activities, including military base operations and the construction of new and/or replacement infrastructure at these military bases. As a result, ASUS is subject to risks that are different than those of Registrant’s regulated water and electric activities.  ASUS plans to continue seeking contracts for the operation and maintenance of water and wastewater services at military bases.

For 2007, net income was $28.0 million compared to $23.1 million in 2006, an increase of 21.4%. Diluted earnings per share for 2007 were $1.61 compared to $1.33 in 2006.  One reason for this increase is the derivative accounting required for the purchased power contracts at GSWC’s Bear Valley Electric Service (“BVES”) division.  Unrealized gains and losses on purchased power contracts have been impacting GSWC’s earnings since 2002 when GSWC entered into certain purchase power contracts.  These contracts qualified as derivative instruments under SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities.”  Due to increasing energy prices, the pretax unrealized gain on purchased power contracts of $2.1 million increased net income by $0.07 per share during 2007 in contrast to a pretax unrealized loss of $7.1 million which decreased net income by $0.24 per share for the same period of 2006.  The net effect was an increase in net income of $9.2 million, or $0.31 per share, between the two periods.

The purpose of the purchased power contract, which qualifies as a derivative instrument, is to stabilize Registrant’s purchased power costs.  The power purchased under the contract is only used to service electric customers’ demand and Registrant does not engage in trading of purchased power.   Although the unrealized gains and losses result in significant fluctuations to the income statement, there is no effect on Registrant’s cash flows.  When analyzing the financial performance of AWR, Registrant excludes the effect of unrealized derivative gains or losses, as they are not reflective of day-to-day operations.  The unrealized derivative gains and losses are reflective of changes in future electricity costs that are outside of management’s control.  Eliminating the effects of unrealized derivative gains and losses on purchased power contracts, diluted earnings per share for 2007 would have actually decreased by $0.03 per share as compared to 2006.  Several operating reasons which are responsible for this overall decrease are discussed below in more detail, including a favorable decision issued by the CPUC on April 13, 2006 regarding GSWC’s water rights lease revenues received from the City of Folsom, which generated a one-time revenue increase in 2006. This CPUC decision added about $2.3 million of additional revenues, or $0.08 per share, in the first quarter of 2006 for amounts that had been received from the City of Folsom in 2004 and 2005.  There was no such one-time revenue recognition amount in 2007.  Based on the decision, GSWC has recorded the on-going annual Folsom lease revenues of approximately $1.3 million and $1.2 million for 2007 and 2006, respectively.

21

Summary Results by Segment

                AWR has three reportable segments: water, electric and contracted services. Within the segments, AWR has three principal business units: water and electric service utility operations conducted through GSWC, a water-service utility operation conducted through CCWC, and a contracted services unit conducted through ASUS and its subsidiaries. The tables below set forth summaries of the results by segment (in thousands) for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006:

                Water—For the year ended December 31, 2007, pretax operating income for water increased by $2.5 million, or 4.1%, compared to the same period in 2006, as a result of a $13.2 million increase in water margin as compared to the same period of 2006 due to increased water rates approved by the CPUC that were effective January 1, 2007 and a favorable change in the water supply mix.  This comparative increase was partially offset by the non-recurrence in 2007 of a favorable decision issued by the CPUC on April 13, 2006 regarding GSWC’s water rights lease revenues received from the City of Folsom, which generated a one-time revenue increase in 2006. This decision added about $2.3 million of additional revenues in the first quarter of 2006 for amounts that had been received from the City of Folsom in 2004 and 2005. Prior to the decision, these amounts had been recorded as regulatory liabilities. There was no such one-time revenue recognition amount in 2007. Based on the decision, GSWC has recorded the on-going annual Folsom lease revenues of approximately $1.3 million and $1.2 million for 2007 and 2006, respectively.  The increase in margin for 2007 compared to 2006 was also partially offset by higher operating, maintenance, administrative and general, and other expenses, which decreased pretax operating income by $10.7 million, as more fully described below.

                Electric—For the year ended December 31, 2007, pretax operating income for electric increased by $6.8 million, due in large part to an unrealized gain on BVES’ purchased power contracts during the year ended December 31, 2007 as a result of increasing energy prices versus an unrealized loss on purchased power contracts in the same period of 2006, as previously discussed. The unrealized gain for the year ended December 31, 2007 increased operating income by approximately $2.1 million as compared to an unrealized loss decreasing operating income by $7.1 million for the same period in 2006. The net effect was an increase in electric operating income of $9.2 million between the two periods. Without the effects of the derivative, pretax electric operating income decreased by $2.4 million in 2007 due to a $890,000 decrease in electric margin caused by lower consumption and the recording of a regulatory liability of approximately $178,000 with a corresponding reduction in electric revenues for probable refunds to customers related to the 8.4 MW natural gas-fueled generation plant. In April 2005, new customer rates went into effect related to this generation plant, which resulted in an increase of approximately $2.3 million in annual revenue based on an estimated total capital-related cost of $13 million. The rates are subject to refund pending the CPUC’s final cost review, which is scheduled to occur in 2008 as part of  the filing of BVES’s general rate case. The CPUC also ordered GSWC to establish a memorandum account to track the capital-related costs of the generation plant. If actual recorded costs in the memorandum account are less than the costs authorized by the CPUC of $13 million, the revenue requirement for the difference is to be refunded to customers. During the third quarter of 2007, GSWC received vendor credits of approximately $851,000, which reduced the actual recorded costs of the generation plant below $13 million.  Finally, increases in maintenance, depreciation, administrative and general, and other operating expenses further decreased electric’s pretax operating income by $1.4 million.

                Contracted Services—For the year ended December 31, 2007, pretax operating income for contracted services increased by $1.9 million. This was primarily due to the supplemental construction contract for improvements to the existing wastewater infrastructure located at Fort Bliss associated with a wastewater expansion project. As a result of this construction project, pretax operating income increased by $4.9 million during 2007. The project was completed in August 2007 and there will be no further construction revenues associated with this project. The year over year increase to pretax income due to this project was partially offset by other non-recurring construction projects that were completed in 2006. Earnings and cash flows from amendments or supplements to the original 50-year contracts with the U.S. government are sporadic and may or may not continue in future periods.

22

Revenues from contracted services are comprised of: 1) management fees for operating and maintaining the water and wastewater systems (“O&M”) at the military bases; 2) construction revenues for contractual renewal and replacements (“R&R”) and initial capital upgrades (“ICUs”) of the existing infrastructure facilities, and 3) construction revenues under firm-fixed and cost-plus arrangements for projects requested by the U.S. government beyond those identified in the 50-year privatization contract.  While the on-going R&R, ICU’s and supplemental construction activities have produced positive operating income results from the cost-plus and firm-fixed construction contracts, the O&M aspect of the business has  resulted in shrinking margins, and in some cases losses, due primarily to delays in filing timely price redeterminations and equitable adjustments.  Registrant’s contract pricing on each of the contracts was based on a number of assumptions, including assumptions about prices and availability of labor, equipment and materials, the condition of the systems and the actual amount of assets being operated and maintained.

The contract price for each of these military contracts is subject to price redetermination two years after commencement of operations and every three years thereafter to the extent provided in each of the contracts.  However, ASUS has experienced delays in the redetermination of prices at Fort Bliss following completion of the first two years of operation in October 2006 and expects delays in redetermination of prices at bases in Virginia and Maryland following the completion of the first two years of operations in February 2008.  Delays may also occur at additional bases in Virginia following completion of the first two years of operations in April 2008.  At Fort Bliss, management fees for operation and maintenance of the water and wastewater systems, which were based on cost levels prevailing in 2002 when the contract was first being negotiated, have not been adjusted as yet to adequately cover increased operating costs.  Further, the contract pricing was also based on assumptions about the size and age of the infrastructure being operated and maintained over the 50-year contract.  An adjustment is necessary to adequately reflect the amount of assets included in the infrastructure at Fort Bliss, which is substantially more than originally estimated by the U.S. government as part of its solicitation for this contract.   Price redeterminations are expected to occur in 2008 at Fort Bliss, the four bases in Virginia and Andrews Air Force Base.  These price redeterminations, which should include adjustments to reflect changes in operating conditions and infrastructure levels from that assumed at the time of the execution of the contracts as well as inflation in costs, are expected to provide added revenues prospectively to help offset increased costs and provide Registrant the opportunity to generate positive operating income from O&M activities.

                Also partially offsetting the increase in pretax operating income due to construction activities, was the non-recurrence of recovery and reimbursement in 2006 of transition period operating expenses of about $672,000 as a result of operating and maintaining the water and wastewater systems at military bases in Virginia and Maryland pursuant to the contracts with the U.S. government commencing during 2006. ASUS took over the operation and maintenance of the water and wastewater systems at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland on February 1, 2006 and commenced operation of these systems on that date. In addition, ASUS assumed the operation and maintenance of the wastewater systems at Fort Lee in Virginia on February 23, 2006 and the water and wastewater systems at Fort Eustis, Fort Monroe and Fort Story in Virginia on April 3, 2006 and commenced operation and maintenance of these systems on those dates. Therefore, ASUS operated these bases partially during 2006 and entirely during 2007.  As well, final decisions on the general rate case for GSWC’s Region II and the application to recover general office expenses at the corporate headquarters allocated to Regions II and III were approved on November 16, 2007.  The decisions also imposed an increased allocation of corporate headquarters’ expenses to the Military Utility Privatization Subsidiaries, which decreased contracted services’ 2007 pretax operating income by an additional $526,000.  This higher allocation of expenses was not contemplated at the time the contracts for FBWS, ODUS and TUS were negotiated.

23

Consolidated Results of Operations - Years Ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 (dollars in thousands)

                Net income for the year ended December 31, 2007 increased by 21.4% to $28.0 million, equivalent to $1.62 and $1.61 per common share on a basic and fully diluted basis, respectively, compared to $23.1 million or $1.34 and $1.33 per basic and diluted common shares, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2006. Impacting the comparability in the results of the two periods are the following significant items:

24

·                  There was an unrealized gain on purchased power contracts in 2007 due to increasing energy prices versus an unrealized loss on purchased power contracts in 2006. The cumulative unrealized gain on purchased power contracts increased pretax income by approximately $2.1 million, or $0.07 per share, for the year ended December 31, 2007, as compared to a cumulative unrealized loss on purchased power contracts that decreased pretax income by $7.1 million, or $0.24 per share in 2006.

·                  A decision issued by the CPUC on April 13, 2006 regarding the accounting treatment of GSWC’s water rights lease revenues, increased pretax operating income by about $2.3 million in March 2006, or approximately $0.08 per share, when compared to the same period in 2007. Pursuant to a March 2004 CPUC order, the apportionment of any Folsom lease revenues that GSWC may collect commencing in January 2004 was to be determined by a later decision. Pending that later decision and beginning in the first quarter of 2004, all amounts billed to the City of Folsom had been included in a regulatory liability account and no amounts were recognized as revenue until uncertainties about this matter were resolved with the CPUC. On April 13, 2006, the CPUC authorized GSWC to reinvest all lease revenues since January 2004, inclusive of the balances in the regulatory liability accounts established by GSWC for this matter, in water system infrastructure. These investments will be included in the rate base upon which GSWC earns a rate of return. In accordance with California law, GSWC has eight years in which to reinvest the proceeds, after which any amount remaining would inure to the customer’s benefit. As a result, in the first quarter of 2006, GSWC transferred about $2.3 million of water rights lease revenues received from the City of Folsom in 2004 and 2005 from the regulatory liability account, into water revenues.

·                  An increase, excluding the $2.3 million of water right lease revenues as discussed above, in the margin for the water segment of $15.5 million, or $0.52 per share, as compared to the same period of 2006 due to increased water rates approved by the CPUC that were effective January 1, 2007, an increase in water consumption over that in the prior period, and a favorable supply mix change.

·                  An increase in pretax operating income from contracted services at ASUS of $1.9 million, or $0.07 per share, as compared to the same period of 2006 for operating, maintaining and improving the water and wastewater systems at military bases for the U.S. government. The increases include revenue recognized for certain special projects under the percentage-of-completion method of accounting.

·                  An increase in GSWC’s other operating and maintenance expenses of $5.3 million, or $0.18 per share, as compared to the same period of 2006, resulting from higher chemical and water treatment costs along with  an increase in required and emergency maintenance on GSWC’s wells and water supply sources.

·                  Higher other expenses primarily consisting of administrative and general expenses, a change in the effective income tax rate, as well as other items described below, contributed to an overall decrease of $0.36 per basic share to the results of operations.

Operating Revenues

Water

For the year ended December 31, 2007, revenues from water operations increased by 6.7% to $237.9 million, compared to $222.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. Contributing to this increase were rate increases approved by the CPUC effective January 1, 2007, which added approximately $13.0 million in 2007 to water revenues. Included in the rate increases for 2007 were $6.4 million for Region II and $3.0 million to recover general office expenses allocated to Region III. These increases were approved by the CPUC on November 16, 2007 and were retroactive to January 1, 2007.  In addition, an increase of about 2.6% in the volume of billed water consumption resulting from much warmer and drier weather conditions increased revenues by approximately $3.8 million. Differences in temperature and rainfall in Registrant’s service areas impact sales of water to customers, causing fluctuations in Registrant’s revenues and earnings between comparable periods. Partially offsetting these increases was the fact that operating revenues for 2006 were positively impacted by a CPUC decision issued on April 13, 2006 enabling GSWC to record $2.3 million of water rights lease revenues from the City of Folsom for the period from January 2004 to December 2005. Prior to this decision, the apportionment of any lease revenues that GSWC collected in 2004 and 2005 had been included in a regulatory liability account and no amounts were recognized as revenues until regulatory uncertainties about this matter were resolved. There was no such adjustment in 2007. In addition, the increases in revenues are partially offset by the expiration in October 2006 of the surcharge that was in rates to recover Region III’s under-collection in supply costs. This decrease in revenues is offset by a corresponding amount in the supply cost balancing accounts discussed below, resulting in no impact to pretax operating income.

25

                Electric

For the year ended December 31, 2007, revenues from electric operations decreased by 2.4% to $28.6 million compared to $29.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 due primarily to lower electric usage and the recording of a regulatory liability of approximately $178,000, with a corresponding decrease in revenues, for probable refunds to customers related to the 8.4 MW natural gas-fueled generation plant, previously discussed in the segment results.

Contracted Services

                Revenues from contracted services are comprised of construction revenues and management fees for operating and maintaining the water and wastewater systems at military bases. For the year ended December 31, 2007, revenues from contracted services increased by $18.5 million, or 112.3%, to $34.9 million compared to $16.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 due primarily to an increase of approximately $18.9 million related to construction revenues earned from the U.S. government and recognized on the percentage-of-completion method of accounting. The revenues earned were for the construction of certain improvements, renewals and replacements to the existing water and wastewater infrastructure at Fort Bliss and at the military bases located in Virginia and Maryland pursuant to new contracts entered into in early 2006. Certain of the construction projects are fixed-price contracts and are supplements to ASUS’ 50-year contracts with the U.S. government. In particular, ASUS entered into a $20.6 million project for the construction of certain improvements to the existing wastewater infrastructure located at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas. The project was a firm-fixed price contract and was an amendment and supplement to the 50-year contract with the U.S. government to manage the entire water and wastewater systems at Fort Bliss. Revenues from this agreement have been recognized under the percentage-of-completion method of accounting. As a result of this new project, which began in early 2007, revenues for contracted services increased by $20.6 million during 2007. The project was completed in August 2007 and there will be no further construction revenues associated with this project. The year over year revenue increase resulting from this project was partially offset by the non-recurrence of revenues for other one-time construction projects that were completed in 2006. Earnings and cash flows from amendments and modifications to the original 50-year contracts with the U.S. government are sporadic and may or may not continue in the future periods.

There were also additional management fee revenues totaling $539,000 during 2007 generated from operating and maintaining the water and wastewater systems under the new contracts in Virginia and Maryland. Offsetting these increases was a decrease in management fees totaling $938,000 related to contracts with various municipalities to provide billing and meter reading services. Effective January 1, 2007, ASUS assigned these service contracts with the various municipalities to GSWC.  These management fees are now earned by GSWC so there was no impact on Registrant’s consolidated earnings as a result of this assignment.

Registrant relies upon rate approvals by state regulatory agencies in California and Arizona and price redeterminations and equitable adjustments by the U.S. government in order to recover operating expenses and provide for a return on invested and borrowed capital used to fund utility plant. Without such adequate rate relief granted in a timely manner, operating revenues and earnings can be negatively impacted.

26

Operating Expenses:

                Supply Costs

                Supply costs for the water segment consist of purchased water, purchased power for pumping, groundwater production assessments and water supply cost balancing accounts. Supply costs for the electric segment consist of purchased power for resale and the electric supply cost balancing account. Water and electric margins are computed by taking total revenues, less total supply costs. Registrant uses these margins and related percentages as an important measure in evaluating its operating results. Registrant believes this measure is a useful internal benchmark in evaluating the utility business performance within its water and electric segments. Registrant reviews these measurements regularly and compares them to historical periods and to our operating budget as approved. However, this measure, which is not presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), may not be comparable to similarly titled measures used by other entities and should not be considered as an alternative to operating income, which is determined in accordance with GAAP, as an indicator of operating performance.

                Total supply costs comprise the largest segment of total operating expenses. Supply costs accounted for approximately 33.5% and 36.0% of total operating expenses for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. The table below provides the amount of increases (decreases), percent changes in supply costs, and margins during the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 (amounts in thousands):

(1)                                  As reported on AWR’s Consolidated Statements of Income, except for supply cost balancing accounts. The sum of water and electric supply cost balancing accounts in the table above are shown on AWR’s Consolidated Statements of Income and totaled ($1,962,000) and ($1,835,000) for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.