Democrats abandon incumbent assemblywoman

Good morning. Happy Hump Day. Democrats are pushing hard to protect and expand their majority in the Legislature. But there’s one odd woman out: Assemblywoman Patty Lopez, a pariah in the Democratic Party since she knocked off Raul Bocanegra, a popular incumbent, two years ago. 

Up for re-election in 2016, the party didn’t endorse Lopez (rare for an incumbent absent a scandal), outside interests want nothing to do with her and her Assembly kin are almost nowhere to be found.

But she expects to be back in her office next year, stronger than ever. To her, nothing could be more challenging than her first term.

“I survived,” the thick-accented San Fernando Democrat said with a laugh in a recent interview with CalWatchdog, reflecting on her first term in office. “Believe it or not, the first year was hard.” 

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• “Will closing Diablo Canyon spur more fossil fuel use?” writes CalWatchdog. 

• “Delaine Eastin has been out of public office for more than a decade and is confronting a large field of better-known Democrats, but the former state superintendent of public instruction told POLITICO California on Tuesday that she will run for governor in 2018.” Politico has more. 

• “A proposal that would have outlawed short-term vacation rentals in most of San Diego’s single-family neighborhoods was rejected Tuesday by the City Council following a nearly seven-hour hearing that drew hundreds of individuals representing both sides of what has long been a contentious and much debated issue,” reports The San Diego Union-Tribune. 

• “Calling it a classic ‘bait and switch,’ a California consumer group on Tuesday lashed out at Anthem Blue Cross of California, claiming it failed to adequately warn customers they were being shifted in 2017 to brand-new, stripped-down plans.” The San Jose Mercury News has more. 

Legislature:

• Gone till December. 

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced. 

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @oldmanfoster

California regulators have made preparations to close Diablo Canyon, the state’s last remaining nuclear power plant, in a move quickly characterized as a turning point in the nation’s approach to energy production and use.

“Pacific Gas and Electric Co. announced Tuesday it will close California’s last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, in 2025, ending atomic energy’s more than a half-century history in the state,” noted the San Francisco Chronicle. “The move will shutter a plant whose construction on a seaside cliff surrounded by earthquake faults helped create the antinuclear movement. And yet, some conservationists have fought to keep Diablo Canyon open, arguing California needed its output of greenhouse gas-free electricity to not exacerbate global warming.”

In fact, nuclear power has staked a claim to greater efficiencies than other forms of energy such as wind, driving critics of prevailing environmentalist policies to cast Diablo Canyon as a relatively smarter way to meet anti-carbon objectives hard to dislodge from Sacramento. “Nuclear energy is a huge source of clean power that doesn’t release the greenhouse gases that are changing the climate,” according to the U-T San Diego editorial board. “And unlike the San Onofre plant in San Diego County that closed in 2012 because of severe problems with steam generators and more, the Diablo Canyon plant appeared to be functioning well.”

Key players in the state’s environmentalist movement, however, determined that nuclear power represented more of an obstacle to their agenda than a source of potential allies. The proposal to shut down Diablo Canyon, “part of an agreement with environmental and labor groups, is intended to help meet California’s aggressive clean energy goals, which have already transformed the power mix with a large and growing renewable energy fleet at a time of slowing electric demand,” the New York Times reported. “It also comes after years of public pressure to close the plant, near San Luis Obispo, because of safety concerns over its location, near several fault lines, and its use of ocean water for cooling.”

Final approval for the change must come through the California Public Utilities Commission. “The agreement calls for PG&E to withdraw its pending application to extend the licenses for another 20 years, and to replace the plant’s 2,240-megawatt capacity with a combination of efficiency improvements and renewable sources,” as the Los Angeles Times’ Michael Hitzlik noted. “Among the deal’s unique features are provisions for $350 million in retention, severance and retraining payments to existing workers and $49.5 million in payments to San Luis Obispo County as compensation for the loss of a major source of employment and taxes.”

As legacy players in the public and private sector have haggled over the costs and benefits of nuclear power production, innovators have pushed the conversation in a different direction. Although advances in the efficiency of solar power production and retention have become something of a political football in recent years, with Democrats at the state and federal level bent on subsidizing businesses geared toward solar and other nontraditional power sources, alternate-energy entrepreneur Elon Musk has forged ahead with what appear to be plans for a dramatic new play in the space. 

With his Tesla company’s bid to acquire SolarCity, as Fortune suggested, “a fully vertically integrated energy company—from energy generation to installation to storage to application—could create a massive Elon Musk Energy Empire. It would be a company that generates power from the sun, stores energy in batteries, and uses those batteries to power cars and buildings.”

“And it would all be provided by a brand that consumers increasingly know and are excited about. Tesla’s brand is starting to be so powerful that it’s as if Apple decided it wanted to be a full-fledged power company (oh wait, it’s kind of doing that). But never before has the energy industry had such a player that so was so attractive to consumers and also so willing to act disruptively.”

But there’s a twist to this story. Recent coverage suggests that PG&E might not put up a fight when its 40-year federal licenses for Diablo Canyon’s two Westinghouse-made nuclear reactors expire in 2024 and 2025. While PG&E’s website depicts a 20-year extension of the licenses as a no-brainer way to keep supplying clean, non-greenhouse-gas power to more than 3 million people, the company’s dithering on the regulatory front has caught environmentalists’ attention.

This is from a recent Los Angeles Times account:

Although PG&E has asserted that the plant’s continued operation would save its customers as much as $16 billion during the additional 20 years, the cost of bringing Diablo Canyon into compliance with environmental and seismic mandates may in fact not be worth the effort.

 

Energy regulators and advocates have few clues to whether PG&E’s goal is to seek Diablo Canyon’s renewal or find an easy excuse for shutting it down early. “They’re so cagey about the future that I can’t help thinking there’s a strategy here,” says Matthew Freedman, a staff attorney for the consumer watchdog group Turn.

 

Freedman believes the utility’s intention is to delay the renewal proceeding long enough to hamper any opposition. In 2007, the state Public Utilities Commission directed the utility to decide whether to seek renewal at least 10 years in advance of the license expirations, so energy planners would have time to figure out how to replace Diablo Canyon’s output if the plant went dark. Waiting much longer would be “reckless and gambling with the public interest,” the PUC said.

Utility: ‘We’ve got a lot on our plates’

A San Francisco Chronicle report, however, is less conspiratorial in its analysis, depicting PG&E leaders as more interested in other issues — starting with damage control with the utility’s reputation over its pending federal criminal trial:

Once eager to extend Diablo’s licenses, company executives now say they aren’t sure. Since the deadly 2010 explosion of a PG&E natural gas pipeline beneath San Bruno, their focus has been on reforming the company and repairing its image, not relicensing Diablo.

 

And any extension will involve a fight. The plant sits within a maze of earthquake faults, all of them discovered after construction began in 1968. Seismic safety fears have dogged the nuclear industry in California for more than 50 years, forcing PG&E to abandon plans for one of its first reactors.

 

“We’ve got a lot on our plates, and we just don’t need to take on another big public issue right now,” said Tony Earley, PG&E Corp.’s CEO.

 

If Diablo closes, no nuclear plant will take its place. California law forbids building more until federal officials come up with a permanent way to deal with the waste. Thirty-nine years after the law passed, that still hasn’t happened.

This aggravates nuclear power advocates, who thought the deep concerns many have about global warming would lead to a renaissance for nuclear power in California and elsewhere. Instead, Japan’s 2011 disaster at its Fukushima nuclear plant has blunted momentum.

Anti-nuclear activists have spent years comparing conditions at Diablo Canyon with those in Fukushima, suggesting its location on or near several seismic fault lines could lead to a Fukushima-style tragedy along the Central California coast. But the claims of close parallels have generally been discounted by conventional California media.

PG&E’s Diablo Canyon plant, the state’s last, has wound up in the crosshairs. As the Associated Press reported, “the company is evaluating whether to meet a tangle of potentially costly state environmental requirements needed to obtain renewed operating licenses.”

“The issues in play at Diablo Canyon range from a long-running debate over the ability of structures to withstand earthquakes — one fault runs 650 yards from the reactors — to the possibility PG&E might be ordered by state regulators to spend billions to modify or replace the plant’s cooling system, which sucks up 2.5 billions of gallons of ocean water a day and has been blamed for killing fish and other marine life.”

The fault in question has rattled nerves in the area and throughout the state. “Even before the twin reactors produced a single watt of electricity, the plant had to be retrofitted after a submerged fault was discovered 3 miles offshore during construction,” the wire noted separately. “That cleft in the earth, known as the Hosgri fault, has long been considered the greatest seismic threat to a plant that stands within a virtual web of faults. But new questions are being raised by sophisticated seafloor mapping that has found that the Hosgri links to a second, larger crack farther north, the San Gregorio fault.”

Increasing emissions

At the same time, the environmental implications of an end to nuclear power have also raised serious concerns. The last California plant to close, in San Diego county, shuttered amidst problems with its infrastructure. California’s public utility commission “approved a shutdown deal last year with the San Onofre plant’s co-owners, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric Co., that assigned about 70 percent of the $4.7 billion shutdown bill to the firms’ customers,” as the San Francisco Chronicle reported. “The companies closed San Onofre after a January 2012 leak of radioactive steam revealed widespread damage to its cooling system.”

The consequences of the closure have worked against anti-carbon policies pushed hard from Sacramento under Gov. Jerry Brown. “With the San Onofre closure, annual statewide emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases linked to electricity production in California jumped by 24 percent,” U-T San Diego observed. “In San Diego, the local electric utility commissioned a major new natural gas plant and will replace an aging plant with new equipment to keep natural gas generators at the ready.” According to expert analysts, the paper added, “the experience could be replicated on a larger scale as many U.S. nuclear plant operators struggle to compete with cheaper sources of energy.”

Innovating nuclear

In response to the dilemma, some leading Californians have come out in favor of revitalizing nuclear power on a more advanced and, presumably, safer footing. In an editorial at The New York Times, Peter Thiel used the recent Paris conference on climate change to force the issue. “If we are serious about replacing fossil fuels, we are going to need nuclear power, so the choice is stark: We can keep on merely talking about a carbon-free world, or we can go ahead and create one,” he wrote.

“We already know that today’s energy sources cannot sustain a future we want to live in. This is most obvious in poor countries, where billions dream of living like Americans. The easiest way to satisfy this demand for a better life has been to burn more coal: In the past decade alone, China added more coal-burning capacity than America has ever had. But even though average Indians and Chinese use less than 30 percent as much electricity as Americans, the air they breathe is far worse. They deserve a third option besides dire poverty or dirty skies.”

The board will take up possible changes in state rules affecting Diablo Canyon’s cooling water intake structure, a common feature of power plants build next to large bodies of water that are crucial to reducing excess heat during power production but that also can hurt nearby ecosystems. Diablo’s two nuclear generators, which produce more than 2,200 megawatts total, are located on the Pacific Ocean 13 miles south of San Luis Obispo.

It’s considered highly unlikely that the state water board would do anything dramatic. Federal law leaves the most important decisions on nuclear plants to federal authorities. But greens believe that their years of raising questions about the San Onofre nuclear power plant helped clear the way to the decision to shutter the north San Diego County facility in 2011 after it had severe problems with defective steam generators at both its towers.

The owner of the Diablo Canyon plant, Pacific Gas & Electric, has quietly made major progress toward keeping the plant in operation through 2045. This is from a July 13 greentechmedia account:

The license renewal process for Diablo Canyon, California’s last remaining operational nuclear power plant, has just been restarted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

 

Diablo Canyon’s reactors became operable in 1985 and 1986 and their licenses expire in 2024 and 2025. … PG&E started applying to the NRC for a 20-year license extension in 2009, but Japan’s Fukushima incident put the extension on hold until new seismic studies for Diablo Canyon were completed and submitted to the NRC and California Public Utilities Commission.

 

In September of last year, the seismic study conducted by PG&E to determine the safety of the Diablo Canyon plant found that the facility was “designed to withstand and perform [its] safety functions during and after a major seismic event.”

Seismic study sure to face questions

This study is sure to face sharp criticism at the state water board meeting next week. A preview of the criticisms can be seen in a San Francisco Chronicle story on the seismic report earlier this month.

Activists who never wanted Diablo in the first place have been pushing hard to close it, particularly after California’s only other commercial nuclear plant — San Onofre, north of San Diego — shut down in 2012.

 

They argue that PG&E has consistently underestimated earthquake threats to the plant, and that PG&E has a long record of snafus at Diablo, such as replacing the steam generators and vessel heads without first conducting a necessary seismic test. PG&E, in contrast, says the plant boasts a solid safety record.

 

“Our point is, this is a pattern with them,” said Jane Swanson, with Mothers for Peace. “They keep screwing up — and this is a nuclear plant.”

A different dimension to this energy fight

But this battle has different overtones than many fights over energy sources, which often involve declarations that fossil fuels should be scrapped entirely as soon as possible because of their role in generating the greenhouse gases believed to contribute to global warming. Some defenders of Diablo Canyon say it’s their side that has the moral high ground because the plant is a crucial component of an intelligent policy to address climate change. This is from the Chronicle:

California law forbids building more nuclear plants in the state until the federal government comes up with a long-term solution for dealing with the radioactive waste. And with San Onofre closed, nuclear advocates say the state needs Diablo Canyon in order to rein in greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear plants generate electricity without pumping carbon dioxide into the air, and unlike solar power plants and wind farms, their output doesn’t vary from one hour to the next.

 

“We really need to have a low-carbon, base load source of electricity,” said Jessica Lovering, a senior analyst at the Breakthrough Institute, an Oakland think tank focused on energy and the environment. “Taking offline the last nuclear plant would be pretty detrimental to carbon emission reduction goals.”

The California Coastal Commission at some point is also likely to have some regulatory say over any relicensing of Diablo Canyon.

PG&E is believed to consider the plant to be a cornerstone of supply generation for decades to come. But as the greentechmedia account noted, the giant utility “has not yet made a decision about whether to move forward with the relicensing process” — despite building a case for an extended permit for nearly a decade.

By JOSEPH PERKINS

It’s been 22 years since Rancho Seco nuclear power plant generated its last megawatt. The facility, 25 miles southeast of downtown Sacramento, was the casualty of a public referendum in which a majority of voters in the state’s capital city decided the plant should be shut down.

Ben Davis Jr., an anti-nuke activist, is credited with first suggesting the idea of idling Rancho Seco’s two reactors. Now, two decades later, the Santa Cruz resident has come out of retirement to gather signatures for a state ballot measure that would shutter California’s two remaining nuclear power plants — San Onofre in San Diego County and Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo County.

Rancho Seco’s closure cost its owner, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, some $660 million, a portion of which almost certainly was passed along to its ratepayers. It also permanently removed the nuclear plant’s 913 megawatts from the grid — capacity that, if fully utilized, was enough to serve most of SMUD’s business and residential customers.

The fallout from decommissioning both San Onofre and Diablo Canyon would be exponentially greater than Rancho Seco’s shut down. The two nuclear power plants generate 15 percent of California’s electricity. Removing that output from the state grid would have an impact on the state comparable to the electricity crisis of the early 2000s.

Electricity Crisis

Most California residents remember those bad old days.

Because state utilities could not generate enough electricity to meet growing customer demand, the utilities had to purchase megawatts from out-of-state providers at markups of us much as 2,000 percent.

Yes, there was evidence of market manipulation by out-of-state electricity providers. But those providers would not have been able to get away with their alleged price gouging if California was not so reliant on imported electricity; if the state’s utilities had been generating enough megawatts to meet homegrown demand.

Davis, described as “eccentric, stubborn” by one of his friends in California’s anti-nuke community, has obviously ignored the lesson of the early 2000s. His ballot measure is predicated on the dubious notion that California can readily replace the electricity generated by San Onofre and Diablo Canyon by erecting more solar arrays and building more wind farms.

California’s non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office disagrees. In a recent report, it notes that nuclear power supplies “base load” energy to the state’s electricity grid. What that means is that, unlike solar and wind, which are intermittent sources of megawatts, nuclear provides a reliable, uninterrupted power source.

If Davis somehow succeeds in removing San Onofre’s 2,350 megawatts and Diablo Canyon’s 2,240 megawatts from the grid, residents throughout the state can look forward to regular rolling blackouts, the LAO warns.

Meanwhile, decommissioning California’s two remaining nuclear power plants will drive up electricity rates from Sacramento to San Diego.

Part of that is simply a matter of supply and demand. If the state eliminates 15 percent of its electricity output, prices are certain to climb. The other part is that the anti-nuke community will insist that the lost 15 percent be replaced by solar and wind. Those renewable energy sources cost more than twice as much per kilowatt hour as nuclear.

$4 billion Budget Hit

Then there’s the very real possibility that Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric, owners of San Onofre, and Pacific Gas & Electric, owner of Diablo Canyon, could seek compensation from the state of California for the losses incurred by the involuntary shut down of their plants. The LAO’s Office estimates that the losses could total more than $4 billion.

None of the costly scenarios laid out by the LAO, or by pointy headed opinion writers like yours truly, matters to Davis and California’s anti-nuke zealots. If they can shut down the state’s last two nuclear power plants, they are quite willing to subject California residents to the nation’s highest electricity rates.

By KATY GRIMES

Pacific Gas & Electric appears to be rushing to relicense the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power plant 13 years before the current license even expires. Many are asking: Why the big rush?

PG&E is under a spotlight of scrutiny about the safety of the facility, particularly after the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan caused major radioactive leakage at the Fukushima nuclear power plants.

Current licenses for reactors at its two nuclear plants are valid through 2024 and 2025. The latest license application would allow the Diablo Canyon plant to operate until 2045.

At a special state Senate hearing on Monday to address California’s earthquake and disaster preparedness, Sen. Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, asked PG&E representatives to withdraw the early application for license renewal until a seismic study of the site can be done.

Blakeslee has a history with PG&E. Educated and trained as a geophysicist, right after being elected to the Assembly in 2005, Blakeslee wrote an opinion editorial warning about the significant seismic activity around the Diablo Canyon plant. He asked if the facility was safe from tsunami and earthquake damage.

Despite his request for an independent study to determine the seismic activity, Blakeslee said PG&E’s vice president also wrote an op-ed in response — which mocked Blakeslee.

Blakeslee discussed the controversy in a March 20 op-ed in the Santa Cruz Sentinel.

Assembly Bill 1632

Frustrated with PG&E for making light of his concerns over safety, Blakeslee authored AB 1632, a bill requiring the California Energy Commission to assess the vulnerability of California’s aging nuclear power plants. In 2006, it was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“I’m concerned mostly about this culture of disregard of risk. It’s potentially putting my constituents in a place of great risk,” Blakeslee said at Monday’s hearing.

The hearing covered the impact the Japanese earthquake could have on California, and what if any additional preparations the state needs to be aware of regarding nuclear power plant safety.

If the Japanese earthquake and tsunami has shown the the United States anything, it’s that regulatory agencies seem to be overly sensitive to small, daily risks, and ill-prepared for large-scale risks.

Three panels presented information to the senators and gave an overview of California’s risk of an earthquake and tsunami like Japan just experienced, the potential impact to California, and whether California’s nuclear power plants are safe.

California Energy Commissioner James Boyd, also a liaison officer to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told the Senate committee that the CEC has no regulatory authority over either of California’s nuclear plants. But the energy commission was authorized to oversee the disposal of spent nuclear fuel at existing or new nuclear plants in the state, and coordinates the state’s response to federal proposals for spent fuel transportation, disposal and reprocessing.

And AB 1632 directed the CEC to conduct an assessment of both Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear plants to determine what vulnerabilities there are due to earthquakes, any aging effects of the plants, the impacts of the accumulation of nuclear waste at the locations, and what role nuclear power plays in California.

Boyd presented a list of recommendations surrounding seismic issues at the plants, and strongly recommended additional studies before PG&E’s licensing is granted.

Boyd said that both the San Onofre and Diablo Canyon nuclear plants are older power plants like the compromised Japanese plants, and need to address the future of spent fuel storage. The spent fuel is currently kept on site because the federal government never followed through on plans to build a spent fuel storage station.

In November 2008, Boyd had recommended that both plants have three-dimensional seismic mapping of the area done. But, he said, this has not occurred.

PG&E: “No concern.”

“We believe there is no uncertainty in the Diablo Canyon site,” said Lloyd Cluff, PG&E’s director of earthquake risk management.  When pushed to explain, Cluff said, “There’s uncertainty in everything we do. But we have no concern.”

PG&E has received heavy criticism in recent years when it was discovered that valves in the coolers had been stuck shut for nearly 18 months at the Diablo Canyon plant. But Steve David, the site director at Diablo Canyon, told the committee that the backup systems were operational, and there were other cooling-water sources available.

“Are you saying nothing bad will happen?” asked Sen. Elaine Alquist, whose district includes San Bruno, the location of the PG&E gas explosion that ripped through a neighborhood, destroying nearly 40 homes and killing four people.

“I just don’t find PG&E truly forthcoming in addressing these issues,” Alquist said.

Diablo Canyon has not been without controversy. More than one year after obtaining licensing and construction permits, the Hosgri Fault was discovered, with the capability of producing a 7.5 magnitude earthquake.

David Hirsch, a lecturer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, told the committee that what started as a $360 million nuclear power plant became a $5.7 billion plant, with additional and unplanned seismic retrofits costing the bulk of the additional construction costs. Hirsch attributed the unplanned seismic retrofit costs to a permitting vote, which PG&E had heavily objected to beforehand. He told committee members that PG&E had been successful since the 1960’s at  preventing in-depth studies of the consequences of an earthquake at the Diablo Canyon plant, located on the Central Coast.

And then adding insult to injury, the blueprints for the plan were misread, and construction done incorrectly, leading to a rebuild.

Two years ago, another fault was discovered near the plant called the Shoreline Fault. PG&E and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined that the plant could survive an earthquake on the fault.

“Given that the license doesn’t expire until 2024-25,” said Blakeslee, “licensing should be in the hands of the CEC.” Blakeslee said that unless PG&E suspends or withdraws its licensing application, he will be “pursuing legislation,” adding “there’s more than enough time to address this.”

Alquist agreed with Blakeslee and said she wanted to take it a step further. “I don’t want to wait until 2024-25,” she said. “I think something needs to be done, or horrible things can happen.”

One solution to California’s need for electricity would have been to construct more nuclear power plants. Doing so also would have helped the state meet the requirements of AB 32 to reduce greenhouse gases. Nuke plants don’ t produce any gases.

Although nuclear plants are cheap and efficient, the safety issue has arisen big time with the explosion at one nuke plant in Japan after its earthquake; two others might be at risk.

Previously, the two major crises involving civilian nuclear power were, first, at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979. It was a partial core meltdown, which had limited health effects.

Second was the 1986 Chernobyl explosion in the Soviet Union, which killed an estimated 4,000 people and spewed radioactivity over hundreds of thousands of people in what now is Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. But Chernobyl was the result of crummy socialist technology in the final days of communism in the Soviet Union.

Indeed, the Chernobyl blast hastened the Soviet Union’s demise by displaying to the world, in deadly fashion, that socialism means total incompetence and death. (Much as Obamacare would do if fully imposed in America; Obamacare is a health-care Chernobyl.)

By contrast, Japan is a modern, capitalist nation highly efficient in making machines, especially nuclear power. Yet they couldn’t make nuke plants to survive earthquakes they knew were coming.

Any chance of reviving nuclear plants in America now is dead, especially in California, where we also have earthquakes. We have two nuke plants here in California, at San Onofre (pictured above) and Diablo Canyon. In the coming days, we’ll be hearing calls to shut them down. It could happen. Doing so would greatly increase the price of electricity in California.

Alternative ways to create electricity — wind, solar, biomass, etc. — produce at most 2 percent of electricity, and usually are economic boondoggles subsidized by taxpayers. AB 32 also retards the production of the most efficient source of electricity in California, clean natural gas.

That will leave importing electricity from nearby states, Canada and Mexico. Which will mean higher costs to California businesses and families.

Lasting working Californian to leave the state, don’t forget to turn off the lights. Actually, never mind. The lights already will be off.

March 12, 2011