HASBRO, INC.  AND SUBSIDIARIES Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements — (Continued) (Thousands of Dollars and Shares Except Per Share Data) With respect to the 9,283 outstanding options and 6,094 options exercisable at December 30, 2012, the weighted average remaining contractual life of these options was 3.57 years and 2.63 years, respectively.
The aggregate intrinsic value of the options outstanding and exercisable at December 30, 2012 was $51,521 and $49,939, respectively.
The Company uses the Black-Scholes valuation model in determining the fair value of stock options.
The weighted average fair value of options granted in fiscal 2012, 2011 and 2010 was $6.29, $9.84 and $7.24, respectively.
The fair value of each option grant is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following weighted average assumptions used for grants in the fiscal years 2012, 2011 and 2010:
## Table 0 ##
The intrinsic values, which represent the difference between the fair market value on the date of exercise and the exercise price of the option, of the options exercised in fiscal 2012, 2011 and 2010 were $49,225, $26,308 and $80,783, respectively.
At December 30, 2012, the amount of total unrecognized compensation cost related to stock options was $14,000 and the weighted average period over which this will be expensed is 22 months.
In 2011 and 2010, the Company granted awards to certain employees consisting of cash settled restricted stock units.
Under these awards, the recipients are granted restricted stock units that vest over three years.
At the end of the vesting period, the fair value of those units based on Hasbro’s stock price will be paid in cash to the recipient.
The Company accounts for these awards as a liability and marks the vested portion of the award to market through the statement of operations.
In 2012, 2011 and 2010, the Company recognized expense of $1,348, $804 and $1,004, respectively related to these awards.
In 2012, 2011 and 2010, the Company granted 44, 33 and 36 shares of common stock, respectively, to its non-employee members of its Board of Directors.
Of these shares, the receipt of 33 shares from the 2012 grant, 27 shares from the 2011 grant and 30 shares from the 2010 grant has been deferred to the date upon which the respective director ceases to be a member of the Company’s Board of Directors.
These awards were valued at the market value of the underlying common stock at the date of grant and vested upon grant.
In connection with these grants, compensation cost of $1,560, $1,560 and $1,440 was recorded in selling, distribution and administration expense in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
(14) Pension, Postretirement and Postemployment Benefits Pension and Postretirement Benefits The Company recognizes an asset or liability for each of its defined benefit pension plans equal to the difference between the projected benefit obligation of the plan and the fair value of the plan’s assets.
Actuarial gains and losses and prior service costs that have not yet been included in income are recognized in the balance sheet in AOCE.
Expenses related to the Company’s defined benefit pension and defined contribution plans for 2012, 2011 and 2010 were approximately $40,300, $35,500 and $34,900, respectively.
Of these amounts, $29,500, $28,500 and $29,000, respectively, related to defined contribution plans in the United States and certain international subsidiaries.
The remainder of the expense relates to defined benefit pension plans discussed below.
Commodities—Price Risk Management and Futures Contracts Our most significant raw material requirements include cocoa products, sugar, dairy products, peanuts and almonds.
The cost of cocoa products and prices for related futures contracts and costs for certain other raw materials historically have been subject to wide fluctuations attributable to a variety of factors.
These factors include: Commodity market fluctuations; Foreign currency exchange rates; Imbalances between supply and demand; The effect of weather on crop yield; Speculative influences; Trade agreements among producing and consuming nations; Supplier compliance with commitments; Political unrest in producing countries; and Changes in governmental agricultural programs and energy policies.
We use futures and options contracts and other commodity derivative instruments in combination with forward purchasing of cocoa products, sugar, corn sweeteners, natural gas and certain dairy products primarily to reduce the risk of future price increases and provide visibility to future costs.
Currently, active futures contracts are not available for use in pricing our other major raw material requirements, primarily peanuts and almonds.
We attempt to minimize the effect of future price fluctuations related to the purchase of raw materials by using forward purchasing to cover future manufacturing requirements generally for 3 to 24 months.
However, dairy futures liquidity is not as developed as many of the other commodities futures markets and, therefore, it can be difficult to hedge our costs for dairy products by entering into futures contracts or other derivative instruments to extend coverage for long periods of time.
We use diesel swap futures contracts to minimize price fluctuations associated with our transportation costs.
Our commodity procurement practices are intended to reduce the risk of future price increases and provide visibility to future costs, but also may potentially limit our ability to benefit from possible price decreases.
Our costs for major raw materials will not necessarily reflect market price fluctuations primarily because of our forward purchasing and hedging practices.
During 2018, average cocoa futures contract prices increased compared with 2017 and traded in a range between $0.88 and $1.23 per pound, based on the Intercontinental Exchange futures contract.
Cocoa production was higher during the 2017 to 2018 crop year and slightly outpaced the increase in global demand, which led to a small rebuild in global cocoa stocks over the past year.
At the beginning of the year, cocoa prices rallied sharply before declining in the second half due to increased supply relative to demand.
The table below shows annual average cocoa futures prices and the highest and lowest monthly averages for each of the calendar years indicated.
The prices reflect the monthly averages of the quotations at noon of the three active futures trading contracts closest to maturity on the Intercontinental Exchange.
## Table 1 ##
Source: International Cocoa Organization Quarterly Bulletin of Cocoa Statistics Our costs for cocoa products will not necessarily reflect market price fluctuations because of our forward purchasing and hedging practices, premiums and discounts reflective of varying delivery times, and supply and demand for our specific varieties and grades of cocoa liquor, cocoa butter and cocoa powder.
As a result, the average futures contract prices are not necessarily indicative of our average costs.
During 2018, prices for fluid dairy milk ranged from a low of $0.13 per pound to a high of $0.15 per pound, on a Class IV milk basis.
Fluid dairy milk prices were lower than 2017, driven by higher U. S.  inventories
The following table summarizes NRG's U. S.  coal capacity and the corresponding revenues and average natural gas prices and positions resulting from coal hedge agreements extending beyond December 31, 2014, and through 2018 for the East region:
## Table 2 ##
(a) Net coal capacity represents nominal summer net MW capacity of power generated as adjusted for the Company's ownership position excluding capacity from inactive/mothballed units, see Item 2 - Properties for units scheduled to be deactivated.
(b) Forecasted generation dispatch output (MWh) based on forward price curves as of December 31, 2014, which is then divided by number of hours in a given year to arrive at MW capacity.
The dispatch takes into account planned and unplanned outage assumptions.
(c) Includes amounts under power sales contracts and natural gas hedges.
The forward natural gas quantities are reflected in equivalent MWh based on forward market implied heat rate as of December 31, 2014, and then combined with power sales to arrive at equivalent MWh hedged which is then divided by number of hours in a given year to arrive at MW hedged.
The coal sales include swaps and delta of options sold which is subject to change.
For detailed information on the Company's hedging methodology through use of derivative instruments, see discussion in Item 15 - Note 5, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Includes inter-segment sales from the Company's wholesale power generation business to the retail business.
(d) Percentage hedged is based on total coal sales as described in (c) above divided by the forecasted coal capacity.
(e) Represents U. S.  coal sales, including energy revenue and demand charges, excluding revenues derived from capacity auctions.
Retail Operations In 2014, NRG's retail businesses within NRG Home and NRG Business sold electricity to residential, commercial and industrial consumers at either fixed, indexed or variable prices.
Residential and smaller commercial consumers typically contract for terms ranging from one month to two years while industrial contracts are often between one year and five years in length.
In 2014, NRG's retail businesses sold approximately 63 TWhs of electricity.
In any given year, the quantity of TWh sold can be affected by weather, economic conditions and competition.
The wholesale supply is typically purchased as the load is contracted from a combination of NRG's wholesale portfolio and other third parties.
The ability to choose supply from the market or the Company's portfolio allows for an optimal combination to support and stabilize retail margins.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td><td> 2010</td></tr><tr><td>Risk-free interest rate</td><td>0.69%</td><td>1.64%</td><td>2.17%</td></tr><tr><td>Expected dividend yield</td><td>3.99%</td><td>2.63%</td><td>2.97%</td></tr><tr><td>Expected volatility</td><td>31%</td><td>30%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>Expected option life</td><td>5 years</td><td>5 years</td><td>5 years</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">Cocoa Futures Contract Prices(dollars per pound)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2018</td><td>2017</td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td></tr><tr><td>Annual Average</td><td>$1.06</td><td>$0.91</td><td>$1.29</td><td>$1.40</td><td>$1.36</td></tr><tr><td>High</td><td>1.23</td><td>0.99</td><td>1.38</td><td>1.53</td><td>1.45</td></tr><tr><td>Low</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.87</td><td>1.03</td><td>1.28</td><td>1.25</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>East</td><td>2015</td><td>2016</td><td>2017</td><td>2018</td><td>AnnualAverage for2015-2018</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">(Dollars in millions unless otherwise stated)</td></tr><tr><td>Net Coal Capacity (MW)<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>10,401</td><td>8,732</td><td>7,280</td><td>7,132</td><td>8,386</td></tr><tr><td>Forecasted Coal Capacity (MW)<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>4,888</td><td>3,482</td><td>2,971</td><td>2,631</td><td>3,493</td></tr><tr><td>Total Coal Sales (MW)<sup>(c)</sup></td><td>5,503</td><td>1,575</td><td>514</td><td>—</td><td>1,898</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage Coal Capacity Sold Forward<sup>(d)</sup></td><td>113%</td><td>45%</td><td>17%</td><td>—%</td><td>44%</td></tr><tr><td>Total Forward Hedged Revenues<sup>(e)</sup></td><td>$2,292</td><td>$735</td><td>$198</td><td>$—</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Weighted Average Hedged Price ($ per MWh)<sup>(e)</sup></td><td>$47.56</td><td>$53.12</td><td>$43.89</td><td>$—</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Average Equivalent Natural Gas Price ($ per MMBtu)<sup>(e)</sup></td><td>$3.48</td><td>$4.23</td><td>$4.33</td><td>$—</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gas Price Sensitivity Up $0.50/MMBtu on Coal Units</td><td>$82</td><td>$160</td><td>$186</td><td>$178</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gas Price Sensitivity Down $0.50/MMBtu on Coal Units</td><td>$14</td><td>$-97</td><td>$-136</td><td>$-137</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Heat Rate Sensitivity Up 1 MMBtu/MWh on Coal Units</td><td>$36</td><td>$101</td><td>$145</td><td>$133</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Heat Rate Sensitivity Down 1 MMBtu/MWh on Coal Units</td><td>$7</td><td>$-65</td><td>$-103</td><td>$-98</td><td></td></tr></table>

Question: In the year with largest amount of Net Coal Capacity (MW) in Table 2, what's the increasing rate of High in Table 1?
Answer: 0.05517
Reasoning program: subtract(1.53,1.45), divide(#0,1.45)