2 pages or 600 word essays- MLA style- Use the data in the Attachment- For two different people

Microtheme Based on EIA Dataset

I need 2 different essays on the same topic listed below. So, in the end, you will be preparing 2 documents with 2 different writing styles. These are the same assignment for me and my friend.

PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS. THE DATA AND GRAPH CONTAINED IN THE BELOW WEBSITES CAN BE FOUND IN THE LOWER PART OF THE ATTACHMENT

Write a microtheme (a 2-page or 600-word essay) in MLA style referencing one of the following datasets from the Energy Information Administration website:

1) U.S. Electricity Profiles: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/

2) Petroleum Imports to U.S. by Country: http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/imports/companylevel/

3) U.S. State Energy Profiles: http://www.eia.gov/state/index.cfm?ref=bookshelf

(look at raw data under map)

4) State-Level Energy-Related CO2 Emissions: http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/

(if you select #4, select only one of the available datasets on the right of the page).

How to approach this assignment:

a) Study the table you select and identify, discuss, and reference the patterns or “stories” in the dataset source. See the section in Chapter 9 called “How Tables Contain a Variety of Stories” (202-204).

b) Provide a brief summary of the data, including the main observations and conclusions represented in the dataset.

c) Based on the patterns or “stories” you have identified from the dataset, develop a supportable claim.

d) To support your claim, create and embed a graph into your argument by making inferences from your dataset, doing calculations, and converting the tabular data (dataset) into a bar or line graph. Be sure to label and title your graph (see “Special Strategies for Framing Statistical Evidence” on pp. 100-101). Follow the rule of independent redundancy: “the graphic should be understandable without the text; the text should be understandable without the graphic; the text should repeat the most important information in the graphic” (207).

e) Argue/defend the overall conclusions you have interpreted from the dataset.

Microtheme Based on EIA Dataset

Write a microtheme (a 2-page or 600-word essay) in MLA style referencing one of the following datasets from the Energy Information Administration website:

) U.S. Electricity Profiles:

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/

2) Petroleum Imports to U.S. by Country:

http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/imports/companylevel/

) U.S. State Energy Profiles:

http://www.eia.gov/state/index.cfm?ref=bookshelf

(look at raw data under map)

4) State-Level Energy-Related CO2 Emissions:

http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/

(if you select #4, select only one of the available datasets on the right of the page).

How to approach this assignment:

a) Study the table you select and identify, discuss, and reference the patterns or “stories” in the dataset source. See the section in Chapter

called “How Tables Contain a Variety of Stories” (202-204).

b) Provide a brief summary of the data, including the main observations and conclusions represented in the dataset.

c) Based on the patterns or “stories” you have identified from the dataset, develop a supportable claim.

e) Argue/defend the overall conclusions you have interpreted from the dataset.

State Electricity Profiles

Data for 2010 | Release Date: January

, 20

| Next Release: November 20

Name	Average Retail Price (cents/kWh)	Net Summer Capacity (MW)	Net Generation (MWh)	Total Retail Sales (MWh)
	Alabama	8. 89	32 ,4 17	15 2, 1 50 , 51 2	90,862, 64 5
	Alaska	14 .76	2,067	6,759,576	6,2 47 ,0 38
	Arizona	9.69	26 ,392	111 , 750 ,957	72 , 8 31 ,737
	Arkansas	7. 28	15,9 81	61,000, 185	48 ,194,285
	California	13.01	67,328	204,125,596	258,525, 41 4
	Colorado	9.15	13, 77 7	50,720,792	52, 91 7,786
	Connecticut	17.39	8, 284	33 ,3 49 ,6 23	30,391,766
	Delaware	11.97	3, 389	5,6 27 ,6 45	11,605,932
	District of Columbia	13.35	790	199 ,858	11,876,995
	Florida	10.58	59, 147	229 ,095,935	231, 209 ,614
Georgia	8.87	36,636	137,576,941	140,671,580
Hawaii	25.12		2,536	10,836,036	10,0 16 ,509
Idaho	6.54	3,990	12,024, 56 4	22,797,6 68
Illinois	9.13	44 ,127	201,351,872	144,760,674
Indiana	7.67	27,638	125, 180 ,739	105 ,994, 376
Iowa	7.66	14,592	57,508,7 21	45,445,269
Kansas	8.35	12,5 43	47,923,762	40, 420 ,675
Kentucky	6.73	20, 453	98,217, 65 8	93,569,426
Louisiana	7.80	26,744	102,884,940	85,079,692
Maine	12.84	4,430	17,018,660	11,531,568
Maryland	12.70	12,516	43,607,264	65,335,498
Massachusetts	14.26	13,697	42,804,824	57,123, 422
Michigan	9.88	29,831	111, 55 1,371	103,649,219
Minnesota	8.41	14,715	53,670,227	67,799,706
Mississippi	8.59	15,691	54,487,260	49,687,166
Missouri	7.78	21,739	92,312,989	86,085,117
Montana	7.88	5,866	29, 791 ,181	13,423,138
Nebraska	7.52	7,857	36,630,006	29,849,460
Nevada	9.73	11, 421	35,146,248	33,772,595
New Hampshire	14.84	4,180	22,195, 912	10,890,074
New Jersey	14.68	18,424	65,682,494	79, 179 ,427
New Mexico	8.40	8,130	36, 251 ,542	22,428, 34 4
New York	16.41	39, 357	136, 961 ,654	144,623,573
North Carolina	8.67	27,674	128, 678 ,483	136,414,947
North Dakota	7.11	6,188	34,739,542	12,956, 263
Ohio	9.14	33,071	143,598,337	154,145,418
Oklahoma	7.59	21,022	72,250,733	57, 845 ,980
Oregon	7.56	14,261	55,126,999	46,025,945
Pennsylvania	10.31	45,575	229,752,306	148,963, 968
Rhode Island	14.08	1,782	7,738,719	7,799,227
South Carolina	8.49	23,982	104, 153 ,133	82,479,293
South Dakota	7.82	3,623	10,049,636	11,356, 149
Tennessee	8.61	21,417	82,348,625	103,521,537
Texas	9.34	108,258	411,695,046	358,457, 550
Utah	6.94	7,497	42,249,355	28,044,001
Vermont	13.24	1,128	6,619,990	5,594,833
Virginia	8.69	24,109	72,966,456	113,806,135
Washington	6.66	30,478	103,472,729	90,379,970
West Virginia	7.45	16,495	80,788,947	32,031,803
Wisconsin	9.78	17,836	64,314,067	68,752,417
Wyoming	6.20	7,986	48,119, 254	17,113,458
U.S. Total	9.83	1,039,062	4,125,059,899	3,754,486,282

August 2013 Import Highlights

Monthly data on the origins of crude oil importsin August 2013 has been released and it shows that two countries exported more than 1 million barrels per day to the United States (see table below). The top five exporting countries accounted for 72 percent of United States crude oil imports in August while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 91 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top five sources of US crude oil imports for August were Canada (

2,613

thousand barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (

1,332

thousand barrels per day), Mexico (845 thousand barrels per day), Venezuela (

603

thousand barrels per day), and Kuwait (

400

thousand barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Iraq (

397

thousand barrels per day), Colombia (357 thousand barrels per day), Angola (

346

thousand barrels per day), Ecuador (344 thousand barrels per day), and Brazil (150 thousand barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 8,099 thousand barrels per day in August, which is an increase of 27 thousand barrels per day from imports during July 2013.
Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum to the United States in August; exporting

3,076

thousand barrels per day. The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Saudi Arabia with 1,332 thousand barrels per day.

2,536

402

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries) (thousand barrels per day)
	Country		Aug-13		Jul-13		YTD 2013		Aug-12		YTD 2012
	CANADA	2,613	2,546	2,459	2,471
	SAUDI ARABIA		1,332		1, 318	1,241		1,220	1,432
	MEXICO	845	852	831	968	961
	VENEZUELA	603	871	750	977	867
	KUWAIT	400		309	318	300		316
	IRAQ		397			299		383		550		463
	COLOMBIA	357	574			402	389	421
	ANGOLA	346	229	222	141	251
	ECUADOR	344		192	232	174	185
	BRAZIL	150	110	107	211	254
	NIGERIA	134	199	294	462
CHAD	81	77	64			30		17
	RUSSIA	72			15		48	91		116
CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE)		56		9	16	23	38
GABON		68	26			49	32

Country

Aug-13

Jul-13

YTD 2013

Aug-12

YTD 2012

CANADA

SAUDI ARABIA

1,332

1,318

1,220

MEXICO

VENEZUELA

RUSSIA

KUWAIT

309

316

IRAQ

397

299

383

550

463

ANGOLA

COLOMBIA

453

ECUADOR

BRAZIL

NIGERIA

192

116

Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries) (thousand barrels per day)
3,076	3,008	3,098	2,954	2,991
1,243	1,436
912	930	908	1,016	1,021
678	924	791	1,048	920
572		453	488	368	455
420	321	301
376	242	238	153	263
375	588	422	409
349	198	236	180	190
226	179	149		289	284
167	240	339	504	441
UNITED KINGDOM	163	147	197	161
ALGERIA	105	112	303	270
KOREA, SOUTH	89	65	111	55

State Total Energy Rankings, 2011Download Table Data as CSV

Production

Consumption per Capita

Expenditures per Capita

State

U.S. Share

Rank

Million Btu

Rank

Dollars

Rank

Alaska

2.1%

881

10,692

Alabama

1.8%

402

5,096

Arkansas

1.8%

380

4,780

Arizona

0.8%

221

3,474

California

3.4%

209 47

3,612

Colorado

3.5%

289

3,779

Connecticut

0.3%

207

4,284

District of Columbia

0.0%

291

3,871

Delaware

0.0%

299

4,357

Florida

0.7%

221

3,564

+ Display All States

Overview

Energy-related carbon dioxide emissionsvary significantly across states (Figure 1), whether considered on an absolute or per capita basis. The overall size of a state, as well as the available fuels, types of businesses, climate, and population density, play a role in both total and per capita emissions. Additionally, each state’s energy system reflects circumstances specific to that state. For example, some states are located near abundant hydroelectric supplies, while others contain abundant coal resources.This paper presents a basic analysis of the factors that contribute to a state’s carbon dioxide profile. This analysis neither attempts to assess the effect of state policies on absolute emissions levels or on changes over time, nor does it intend to imply that certain policies would be appropriate for a particular state.

The term “energy-related carbon dioxide emissions” as used in this paper, includes emissions released at the location where fossil fuels are used. For feedstock application, carbon stored in products such as plastics are not included in reported emissions for the states where they are produced.

It is also important to recognize that the state-level carbon dioxide emissionsdata presented in this paper count emissions based on the location where the energy is consumed as a fuel. To the extent that fuels are used in one state to generate electricity that is consumed in another state, emissions are attributed to the former rather than the latter. An analysis that attributed “responsibility” for emissions with consumption rather than production of electricity, which is beyond the scope of the present paper, would yield different results.

Total state emission levels

Over the time period from 2000 to 2010, carbon dioxide emissions fell in 32 states and rose in 18 states (Table 1). The greatest percentage decrease in carbon dioxide emissions occurred in Delaware at 27.9 percent, (4.5 million metric tons). The greatest absolute decline was 58.8 million metric tons in Texas (8.3 percent). New York experienced a decline of 38.6 million metric tons (18.3 percent). The greatest percentage increase was in Nebraska at 16.0 percent (6.6 million metric tons), while Colorado experienced the greatest absolute increase (11.8 million metric tons or 13.9 percent).

From 2009 to 2010, only 14 states saw a decrease in emissions. The United States was rebounding from the recession and emissions from consumption of energy was up in most states. Because of differences in data aggregations it is difficult to compare the total for all states with the total for the United States. See the Appendix for a comparison of levels of data detail between the state and national data systems.

Emissions by fuel

States exhibit very different emissions profiles by fuel type (Table 2). For example, in 2010, coal consumption accounted for 80.8 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in West Virginia. In California, 65.2 percent of carbon dioxide emissions came from petroleum, while only 1.4 percent came from coal. Rhode Island had no emissions from coal consumption, but 46.1 percent of its emissions were from natural gas. Vermont’s share of carbon dioxide emissions from petroleum was 92.5 percent and Hawaii’s share was 91.4 percent in 2010. No other states exceeded 80 percent in terms of the share of emissions from petroleum; Maine’s petroleum share was 75.6 percent.

Emissions by sector

There can also be significant variations in terms of carbon dioxide emissions by sector (Tables 3 and 4) – even for states that have similar fuel emissions’ profiles. These variations are due to factors such as the use of different fuels for electricity generation, climate, and sources of economic outputs (e.g., commercial versus industrial activity). For example, in Vermont the largest share of emissions in 2010 came from the transportation sector (58.7 percent), predominantly from petroleum, but the electric powersector share is small (0.1 percent) because of Vermont’s reliance on nuclear power. Vermont’s residential sector share was 22.1 percent – indicative of a relatively cold climate where petroleum is the main heating fuel. Hawaii, where a dominant share of emissions is also from petroleum, has a residential share of 0.3 percent – the lowest in the United States because of minimal heating and cooling requirements. The largest sector emissions share in Hawaii, like Vermont, was from the transportation sector (49.3 percent). However, unlike Vermont, Hawaii’s electric power sector share nearly as high (40.1 percent). The dominant fossil fuel for the generation of electricity in Hawaii is petroleum.

Per capita carbon dioxide emissions

Another useful way to compare total carbon dioxide emissions across states is to divide them by state population and examine them on a per capita basis (Table 5 and Figure 2). Many factors contribute to the amount of emissions per capita, including: climate, the structure of the state economy, population density, energy sources, building standards and explicit state policies to reduce emissions. The 2010 carbon dioxide emissions in Wyoming were 118.5 metric tons per capita, the highest in the United States. In 2010, Wyoming was the second largest energy producer in the United States. Unlike the largest energy producer, Texas, that has a population of 25 million, Wyoming has less than 600 thousand people giving Wyoming the lowest population density in the lower-48 states.

1
Its winters are cold (the average low temperatures in January are in the 5 to 10 degree Fahrenheit range

). These factors act to raise Wyoming’s per capita emissions compared to other states. The second highest state per capita carbon dioxide emissions level was North Dakota at 80.4 metric tons per capita.Â Alaska (54.6 metric tons per capita), West Virginia (54.2 metric tons per capita) and Louisiana (49.3 metric tons per capita) round out the top five states in terms of per capita carbon dioxide emissions. All of these are fossil-energy-producing states. The activity of producing energy is itself energy intensive.

The State of New York, with a population of 19.6 million people, had the lowest per capita carbon dioxide emissions – 8.8 metric tons per capita. A large portion of the population is located in the New York City metropolitan area where mass transit is readily available and most residences are multi-family units that provide efficiencies of scale in terms of energy for heating and cooling. The New York economy is oriented towards high-value, low-energy-consuming activities such as financial markets. For example, in 2010 New York contained 6.3 percent of the U.S. population, but consumed only 1.1 percent of the country’s industrial energy.

3
New York’s energy prices are relatively high (the average retail electricity price of 16.41 cents per kWh was third highest in the country in 2010), which in turn encourages energy savings.

The second lowest per capita carbon emitting state (9.7 metric tons per capita) was Vermont. As mentioned above, Vermont had almost no emissions from its electric power sector. Other states with relatively low per capita emissions rates include: California (9.9 metric tons per capita), Idaho and Oregon (both 10.4 metric tons per capita).

Energy intensity

The energy intensity of a state, as measured by the amount of energy consumed per unit of economic output or, specifically, British thermal units per dollar of a state’s gross domestic product (Btu/GDP), plays an important role in its overall emissions profile (Table 6). The states with the highest rates of emissions per capita in 2010 also had the higher energy intensity values: Wyoming (24.6 thousand Btu per dollar), North Dakota (22.8 thousand Btu per dollar) and West Virginia (21.6 thousand Btu per dollar). Delaware had the lowest energy intensity (3.3 thousand Btu per dollar), followed by New York (3.5 thousand Btu per dollar), Massachusetts, and Connecticut (both 3.7 thousand Btu per dollar). With the exceptions of California and Hawaii, the states with the lowest energy intensity are clustered in the relatively densely populated New England and Central-Atlantic. The 2010 national average is 7.5 thousand Btu per dollar of GDP.

Carbon intensity of the energy supply

The carbon intensity of energy supply (CO2/Btu) is reflective of the energy fuel mix within a state. As with energy intensity, the states with high carbon intensity of energy supply tend to be the states with high per capita emissions. The top five states in 2010 for the energy carbon intensity as measured in kilograms of carbon dioxide per million Btu (kg CO2/MMBtu) —West Virginia (81.7 kg CO2/MMBtu), Kentucky (77.2 kg CO2/MMBtu), Wyoming (76.8 kg CO2/MMBtu), Indiana (75.1 kg CO2/MMBtu), and North Dakota (73.6 kg CO2/MMBtu)— are all states with coal as the dominant fuel (Table 7). The national average carbon intensity of the energy supply in 2010 was 57.6 kg CO2/MMBtu. The states with lower carbon intensity tend to be those states with relatively substantial non-carbon electricity generation such as hydropower or nuclear. These states include, for example, Vermont (34.5 kg CO2/MMBtu), Washington (37.4 kg CO2/MMBtu), Oregon (39.1 kg CO2/MMBtu), Idaho (41.2 kg CO2/MMBtu) and New Hampshire (41.5 kg CO2/MMBtu).

Carbon intensity of the economy

Another measure, the overall carbon intensity of the economy (CO2/dollar of state GDP), combines energy intensity with the carbon intensity of that energy supply. As one would expect, the states with the highest carbon intensity of their economies (Table 8) as measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide per million dollars of state GDP (mt CO2/million dollars of GDP) are also the states with the highest values of energy intensity and carbon intensity of that energy supply. In 2010 these states included: Wyoming (1,886 mt CO2/ million dollars of GDP), West Virginia (1,767 mt CO2/ million dollars of GDP) North Dakota (1,681 mt CO2/ million dollars of GDP), Louisiana (1,145 mt CO2/ million dollars of GDP), and Montana (1,098 mt CO2/ million dollars of GDP). The 2010 U.S. average is 430 mt CO2/ million dollars of GDP. The states with the lowest carbon intensity of economic activity are also states that appear on the lower end of both energy intensity and the carbon intensity of that energy supply. These states include: New York (167 mt CO2/ million dollars of GDP), Connecticut (175 mt CO2/ million dollars of GDP), Delaware (209 mt CO2/ million dollars of GDP), Massachusetts (213 mt CO2/ million dollars of GDP), and California (214 mt CO2/ million dollars of GDP).

Electricity trade

Because this analysis does not account for electricity trade, it is important to understand how much this can influence a state’s carbon dioxide emissions profile. The Net Electricity Trade Index (Table 9) indicates whether a state is self sufficient in the generation of electricity in a given year (a value of 1.0); is a net importer of electricity in a given year (a value of less than 1.0); or is a net exporter of electricity in a given year (a value greater than 1.0). As indicated in Table 9, over half of the 10 states with the highest per capita emissions the states are net exporters of electricity in at least some years. In particular, Wyoming, North Dakota, West Virginia and Montana are large electricity exporters of power produced predominantly with coal. New Mexico is also a net exporter of electricity. Oklahoma is a net exporter, but its dominant fuel is natural gas. Indiana is a small exporter in some years, but was export-neutral in 2009 and 2010. Kentucky, like Indiana is a coal-fueled generation state, but has been export-neutral in recent years. Louisiana, the only state of high per capita emitters that is consistently a net importer of electricity, and Alaska a state that is an importer in some years, but export-neutral in most, are both fossil-fuel producing states with a large energy-intensive component of their economies.

Four of the ten states with the lowest per capita carbon dioxide emissions are consistent importers of electricity: Idaho, California, Massachusetts, and Florida. Rhode Island was an electricity exporter in 2001 and was self sufficient in 2000, 2008, 2009, and 2010. In the other years Rhode Island was an importer of electricity (about 40 percent in 2004). Idaho generates its electricity principally with hydroelectric power and has historically imported 50 percent or more of its electricity from other states. California consistently imports about 30 percent of its electricity and natural gas is the dominant fuel for the electricity that it generates internally. Both Massachusetts and Florida also use natural gas as the dominant fuel for electricity generation.

New York, which is self sufficient many years and a slight importer in other years, generates a dominant share of its electricity with nuclear power. Vermont, which is a consistent exporter of electricity, is also a state dominated by nuclear power generation. Connecticut, also a nuclear power producer, is a slight exporter in some years, an importer in others and self sufficient in yet others. Both Oregon and Washington are usually either self sufficient or net exporters. However, in 2001, which was a particularly bad year for hydroelectric generation in the Pacific Northwest, both states were net importers of electricity.

If the emissions associated with the generation of electricity were allocated to the states where that electricity is consumed, in many cases, the emissions profiles of both the producing and consuming states would change.