About Air and Water

Friday, May 29, 2009

Solar plant planned for Austin

By Environment Texas - Summer Report 2009

In March, the Austin City Council approved a contract to build a 30-megawatt utility scale solar plant—the largest photovoltaic installation in the United States.

“We don’t settle for less than the best in Texas,” said Luke Metzger, director of Environment Texas. “The city of Austin made a major investment in the green economy that will pay dividends in jobs, economic development and environmental protection.”

According to a new report by Environment Texas, Public Citizen and Vote Solar, legislation proposed by state Rep. Rafael Anchia and Sen. Florence Shapiro could lead to solar installations on as many as 500,000 roofs in Texas by 2020, at a cost of about $0.98 per month per Texan. This investment would create tens of thousands of jobs and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 29 million tons, the equivalent of taking 4.3 million cars off the road for a year.
Read more in Environment Texas

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Report Finds Barnett Shale Emissions Contributing to DFW Smog - Environmental Defense Fund

Report Finds Barnett Shale Emissions Contributing to DFW Smog - Environmental Defense Fund

Posted using ShareThis

PUC awards wind power transmission line contracts

By ELIZABETH SOUDER / The Dallas Morning News - January 30, 2009

The Public Utility Commission on Thursday assigned seven utilities to build pieces of a $5 billion transmission line project to bring West Texas wind power to North Texas and Houston.

The decision marks the next step in the Competitive Renewable Energy Zone project, designed to promote renewable energy investment.

Texas has more wind power than any other state, and most of it is in West Texas. Existing transmission lines have nearly reached their capacity to bring wind power to population centers.

"Oncor is pleased by the PUC's movement from discussion to action, stimulating economic development through investment and the creation of hundreds of new jobs," said Don Clevenger, vice president of external affairs for Oncor, which won the largest piece of the transmission project.

Oncor, the electric delivery arm of Energy Future Holdings, will build around $1.34 billion in transmission lines in North Texas for the project.

Another Dallas company, Sharyland Utilities, lead by Hunter Hunt, will build $394 million in transmission lines.

The commission also included newcomers in the process. Wind Energy Transmission Texas, a unit of Spain's Isolux Corsan Concesiones SA, will build $402 million in transmission lines.

Traditionally, transmission line utilities own and operate the power lines in particular regions of the state. In the past, each utility suggests and builds its own projects.

For the CREZ project, the commissioners came up with power lines themselves and allowed anyone to bid on them.

Next, the utilities must file a traditional transmission line application by October, said PUC spokesman Terry Hadley. The application would include proposals for exactly where the lines should go.


Here's how the major projects awarded by the Public Utility Commission for wind power transmission lines break down. The numbers are estimates, and the PUC may award other contracts.

Oncor: $1.34 billion

Electric Transmission Texas: $789 million

Lower Colorado River Authority: $750 million

Lone Star Transmission:
$564 million

Wind Energy Transmission Texas:
$402 million

Sharyland Utilities: $394 million

Cross Texas Transmission: $390 million

SOURCE: Public Utility Commission
Read more in the Dallas Morning News

Pipeline Nightmare: Gas Industry Goes Unscathes This Session

By Jim Grimes - News33 Team - May 27, 2009
Fort Worth - Texas lawmakers have just days until the end of the session, and the natural gas industry has emerged without a scratch.

"The gas industry has completely controlled the legislative process," said Rep. Lon Burnam of Fort Worth.

Burnam was among the lawmakers who filed bills aimed at tighter regulations for gas companies. Those bills addressed eminent domain, environmental and safety issues. "None of that's going to be addressed in this legislation," said Burnam.

Gary Hogan who sits on the Fort Worth Gas Ordnance Task Force said, "most people would see we are building ourselves into a catastrophe."

Burnam also wanted gas to be odorized at the wellhead, which he said would allow the highly combustible gas to be detected in the event of a leak.

Industry expert Ed Ireland said odorizing gas would be ineffective in an outdoor setting. "These companies have stockholders to answer to," said Ireland.

Copyright © 2009, KDAF-TV
Watch more on News 33



Battle Over Fracking Capitol Hill

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Face-off Over 'Fracking': Water Battle Brews On Hill

by Jeff Brady -NPR Morning Edition, May 27, 2009 ·
Environmentalists and the natural gas industry are getting ready for a battle in Congress over something known as "hydraulic fracturing."

"Fracking," as the industry calls it, involves injecting a million gallons or more of water and chemicals deep underground to pry out gas that's locked away in tight spaces.

Environmentalists want the federal government to regulate the practice because, in some cases, fracking may be harming nearby water wells. The industry says regulation should be left up to the states.

Hydraulic fracturing allows drillers to dramatically increase production. The chemicals pumped underground with the water help drillers bore through the hard rock. The pressure used is tremendous — about 300 times a typical garden hose. That creates small cracks in the rock that allow gas to escape.

Steve Harris believes that pressure also ruined his well. He lives on 14 acres south of Dallas. Shortly after a driller fracked a nearby well, he and his neighbors noticed a change in water pressure.

"When you'd flush the toilet — in the back where the bowl is — water would shoot out the top of the bowl," says Harris.

When he took a shower, there was a foul odor, and the water left rashes on his grandson's skin. His horses stopped drinking from their trough, and there was an oily film on top of the water.

Similar stories are popping up around the country. In Ohio, a couple's house blew up when gas from their water well filled their basement. A woman in Colorado blames her health problems on the chemicals used for fracking.

For the most part, people nearby don't even know what chemicals are being injected into the ground — companies don't have to report that.

Theo Colborn, who founded The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, based in Paonia, Colo., has spent years trying to figure out what chemicals the industry is using, with some success. She says removing the exemption fracking has been given from the Safe Drinking Water Act would bring some much-needed light to the industry.

"Believe me, we have a lot of good people within our federal agencies that would love to be working on this issue and addressing it. And they can't — it's hands-off right now," says Colborn.

Generally, the Environmental Protection Agency regulates anything that could affect underground drinking water supplies. But in 2005, the industry successfully lobbied for the exemption for fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act. That leaves regulation up to the states, which don't have the kind of resources the EPA does.

"We have no evidence that hydraulic fracturing is causing problems," says Lee Fuller, vice president of government relations for the Independent Petroleum Association of America. Without evidence of problems, he says there's no reason to pile on more regulation.

"I think people need to have more faith in the regulatory agencies that are watching it very closely and their ability to respond to issues if they arise," says Fuller

But environmental groups are lobbying Congress to get that exemption overturned as hydraulic fracturing becomes increasingly common. Halliburton, which pioneered hydraulic fracturing, says about 35,000 wells are fracked each year.

Gwen Lachelt of the Oil and Gas Accountability Project says that politically, now is the time for those on her side of this issue to move.

"We have a different presidential administration. We have new regions of the country that are now experiencing oil and gas development," says Lachelt. "New York City is a case in point. ... Companies are wanting to drill natural gas wells in New York City's drinking watershed."

Several City Council members have expressed concern over that idea, and there's been talk of finding a way to ban drilling in that region.

But the natural gas industry argues that more regulation will push up prices. To be sure, hydraulic fracturing is, in part, responsible for the low natural gas prices consumers are paying now.

Colorado School of Mines professor Geoffrey Thyne understands that. Still, he wants the industry to start encouraging more scientific research on fracking.

"Let's prove to everybody what we're saying — that's there's absolutely no danger — but let's do it in a rigorous way we can defend," says Thyne.

Thyne says the industry also could agree to stop using harmful chemicals in the process. Already, several of the largest drillers have agreed to stop using diesel, which can poison groundwater with benzene.
Read (or hear) more on NPR

Monday, May 18, 2009

U.S. to Issue Tougher Fuel Standards for Automobiles

By JOHN M. BRODER - The New York Times - May 18, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama will announce tough new nationwide rules for automobile emissions and mileage standards on Tuesday, embracing rules that California has sought to enact for years over the objections of the auto industry and the Bush administration.

The rules, which will begin to take effect in 2012, will put in place a federal standard for fuel efficiency that is as tough as the California program, while imposing the first-ever limits on climate-altering gases from cars and trucks.

The effect will be a single new national standard that will create a car and light truck fleet in the United States that is almost 40 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016 than it is today, with an average of 35.5 miles per gallon.

Environmental advocates and industry officials welcomed the new program, but for different reasons. Environmentalists called it a long-overdue tightening of emissions and fuel economy standards after decades of government delay and industry opposition. Auto industry officials said it would provide the single national efficiency standard they have long desired, a reasonable timetable to meet it and the certainty they need to proceed with product development plans.

Yet the industry position represents an abrupt about-face after years of battling tougher mileage standards in the courts and in Congress, reflecting the change in the political climate and the industry’s shaky financial condition. The decision comes as General Motors and Chrysler are receiving billions of dollars in federal help, closing hundreds of dealerships and trying to design the products and business strategy they will need to survive.

“For seven long years, there has been a debate over whether states or the federal government should regulate autos,” said Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, the industry’s largest trade association. “President Obama’s announcement ends that old debate by starting a federal rulemaking to set a national program.”

Mr. McCurdy, a former Democratic congressman from Oklahoma, has been working with Mr. Obama and his advisers on the issue since early this year.

In announcing the new program at the White House, Mr. Obama will be accompanied by Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, along with auto industry executives and environmental leaders.

The administration’s decision resolves a question over California’s application for a waiver from federal clean air laws to impose its own, tougher vehicle emissions standards. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have said they plan to adopt the California program.

The new national fleet mileage rule for cars and light trucks of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 roughly corresponds to the California requirement, which will be shelved as a result. The current national standard is slightly more than 25 miles per gallon.

The California plan, first proposed in 2002, had been stalled by industry lawsuits and the Bush administration’s refusal to grant a waiver from less stringent federal rules, although California has been given dozens of such exemptions over the last 40 years.

The program will also end a number of lawsuits over the California standards, officials said.

“This is a very big deal,” said Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, who has pushed for tougher mileage and emissions standards for two decades with the goal of curbing the gases that have been linked to global warming. “This is the single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”

The administration had faced a June 30 deadline set by Congress to decide whether to grant California’s application to put its emissions rules into effect. President Obama became personally involved in the issue because he was also trying to find a way to rescue American auto companies from their financial crisis.

One ranking industry official said that the administration wanted to get the new mileage rules in place before General Motors made a decision on a bankruptcy filing, which could happen by the end of this month. The new rules also provide some certainty for Chrysler, which is already under bankruptcy protection, so that it can plan its future models.

To meet the new federal standards, auto companies will have to drastically change their product lineups in a relatively short time.

The companies have declined so far to comment on the costs involved in meeting a fleet standard 0f 35 miles a gallon. For starters, the automakers will probably have to sharply reduce the number of low-mileage models, like pickup trucks and large sedans.

The president’s decision will also accelerate the development of smaller cars and engines already under way.

But Mr. McCurdy said the industry could meet the new mileage targets using existing technology and improvements in future models. He said that 130 models already got 30 miles a gallon or better on the highway.

In January, Mr. Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. He also instructed the Transportation Department to draw up rules to complement a 2007 law requiring a 40 percent improvement in mileage for autos and light trucks by 2020. The Bush administration wrote no regulations to enforce the 2007 law.

Mr. Obama will direct the E.P.A. and the Transportation Department to jointly write enforcement regulations.

Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the liberal Center for American Progress, said that under the White House plan, California would retain the ability to set its own emissions standards in the future when the current program expired.

He also said the new administration program was very close in language and intent to a provision in the climate change and energy bill now before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. That bill calls for a “harmonization” of the California and federal regulatory programs to provide a nationwide standard.

Mr. Obama has been thinking about the future of the American automobile industry for years. He co-sponsored two bills in 2006, during his second year as a United States senator, one to raise fuel economy standards and the other to encourage the use of alternative fuels.

During the presidential campaign, he gave a speech in Detroit chastising the American automobile industry for doing too little to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and improve their vehicles’ efficiency.

“The auto industry’s refusal to act for so long has left it mired in a predicament for which there is no easy way out,” Mr. Obama said.

That inaction has been a factor in the current dire state in which General Motors and Chrysler find themselves. The Japanese automakers are far ahead in developing smaller, more efficient vehicles, although they, too, will have to adjust their product lines.

Fran Pavley, the California state senator who sponsored the legislation that established the California standard, praised the decision as she traveled to Washington Monday to join the White House meeting on Tuesday.

She said through a spokeswoman that California would work on its own rules while the federal regulations were drafted. “This cleans up our air, reduces our dependence on foreign oil and continues to allow California to lead the way,” she said.

Read more in The New York Times

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Republican lawmakers back carbon tax (yes, that's right)

By James Rosen - McClatchy Newspapers - May 13, 2009

WASHINGTON — Reps. Bob Inglis of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona on Wednesday became the first Republican lawmakers to introduce legislation imposing a carbon tax on producers and distributors of fossil fuels.

The bill, co-sponsored by Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois, would set a tax of $15 a ton of carbon dioxide produced in its first year in effect, with the tax rising to $100 a ton over three decades.

"The first axiom of economics is if you want less of something, you tax it," said Flake, a leading fiscal conservative, in an interview. "Obviously, we want less carbon, so we tax it."

Inglis noted that several prominent conservatives support a direct carbon tax: Arthur Laffer, a former economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan, and Gregory Mankiw, who advised President George W. Bush and is now a Harvard University economics professor.

The three lawmakers offer their measure as an alternative to a massive climate change bill backed by President Barack Obama and now before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

That cap-and-trade legislation would set a national limit on total carbon dioxide emissions and attempt to lower them over time through the sale and trading of carbon "allowances," or credits, among the government, factories, utilities, automakers and other sources of pollution.

Inglis and Flake call their measure "tax neutral" because it would reduce payroll taxes by however much revenue the carbon tax raises, with employers and employees splitting the payroll tax cut equally.

The impact of such a direct carbon tax, however, would vary widely in different regions of the country.

Businesses and homeowners who rely heavily on coal for electric power — such as those in Kentucky and Missouri — would face significantly steeper price increases because coal produces much more carbon dioxide.

Such disparities, Flake said, would be an unavoidable outcome of trying to reduce global warming and wean the nation's dependence on foreign oil, some of it from unfriendly governments.

"There's no way you can compensate or have a perfect outcome in which everyone pays the same rates," Flake said. "If you try to do that, then you take away the incentive to change."

The bill puts the two lawmakers at odds with Republican congressional leaders, who've criticized the Democrats' cap-and-trade plans as carbon taxes in disguise.

"Cap and trade is code for increasing taxes, killing American jobs and raising energy costs for consumers," House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said. "The so-called 'cap and trade' proposal amounts to a carbon tax, plain and simple."

Tom Williams, corporate vice president for federal issues with Duke Energy, said his Charlotte, N.C., utility is the nation's third-largest carbon emitter.

A cap-and-trade system is better than a direct carbon tax, Williams said, because it enables Duke Energy and other large polluters to transition away from fossil fuel gradually.

"A carbon tax is effective in many respects, but we consider it more of a blunt instrument," he said. "Cap and trade is designed to be more surgical."

Inglis, whose district around Greenville, S.C., is among the most conservative in the country, acknowledged that it's a huge political risk for him, as a Republican, to propose a new tax.

Inglis said some of his GOP colleagues have pointed out the risk to him.

"They say, 'Inglis, why are you doing this?'" he said. "My answer is because the reward for the country is huge. If you're not here to do courageous things, then go home."

Inglis and Flake oppose the cap-and-trade measure, saying it would create a huge federal bureaucracy to regulate the sale and trade of carbon credits — on the heels of catastrophic financial services failures because of lax government oversight.

"We stand a chance of being a significant possible replacement of cap and trade when cap and trade fails," Inglis said. "It's a carbon-credit trading scheme similar to the Wall Street fiasco we've just seen, complete with a Federal Reserve Board of Carbon Credits."

The cap-and-trade measure would establish an oversight agency, but it doesn't name it.


The new carbon tax bill by Reps. Bob Inglis, Jeff Flake and Dan Lipinski would raise the cost of fossil fuels for consumers.

The measure would initially impose a tax of $15 a ton of carbon dioxide on the producers and distributors of gasoline, natural gas and coal, with the tax rising to $100 a ton over three decades.

The tax increases would be offset by equivalent cuts in payroll taxes, with employers and employees sharing the reductions equally.

The lawmakers acknowledge that users of coal-fueled power would see much bigger cost increases — 83.5 percent in the first year — than the 6 percent price increases for drivers buying gasoline, or consumers of power from natural gas, or the 14.3 percent price increase for users of oil-based power.

The payroll tax cuts would be distributed equally around the country. That means the carbon tax would hit people especially hard in states that rely heavily on coal-based power:

Top 10 states most reliant on coal power

State ........... % of power from coal

West Virginia .......... 97 percent

Indiana ........... 95 percent

Wyoming ............ 95 percent

North Dakota ......... 94 percent

Kentucky ........... 92 percent

Utah ................. 89 percent

Ohio ................ 86 percent

Missouri ............... 85 percent

New Mexico ........ 80 percent

Iowa ................ 76 percent

Other states

Kansas ............... 73 percent

Georgia ............... 63 percent

North Carolina ............... 60 percent

Pennsylvania ............... 56 percent

Illinois ............... 48 percent

South Carolina .............. 40 percent

Mississippi ............... 39 percent

Texas ............... 37 percent

Florida ............... 29 percent

Alaska ...............9 percent

Washington ............... 6 percent

California ...............1 percent

Idaho ............... 1 percent

Source: American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Spot bids to blame for high electricity bills, AARP says

By ELIZABETH SOUDER - The Dallas Morning News - Thursday, May 7, 2009

AARP says it's found the real reason that Texas electricity prices are so high.

A study, released Tuesday and funded by AARP, concludes that Texas could cut consumer electricity prices by $956 million a year, or $52 annually for the average household, by making the wholesale power market more transparent.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which operates the Texas power grid, waits 60 days to disclose information about some types of wholesale electricity bids. That gives power companies time to operate in secret and potentially manipulate prices, according to the report.

"Because of the lack of transparency, all [observers] know is that the prices are doing something odd. They don't actually know what's happening in the market that's causing the prices to be high," said Robert McCullough, head of McCullough Research and author of the report.

The report calls on state lawmakers to pass legislation filed by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and Rep. Todd Smith, R-Euless, to require that all spot market bids be disclosed within two days. The bills remain in committees in the Texas House and Senate.

The Public Utility Commission, which oversees ERCOT, addressed the transparency issue four years ago by requiring the grid operator to disclose in 48 hours information about the bids that set the market price. In the Texas market, the highest electricity bid that ERCOT accepts at any given moment sets the price for all generators – even those generators that turned in lower bids.

ERCOT must disclose information about all the other bids in 60 days.

Prior to the new rule, ERCOT took six months to disclose bid information.

"I think it works well. I think wholesale prices are down," said PUC Chairman Barry Smitherman. "I think firms, many firms, are reluctant to offer at high prices because they are afraid of the publicity associated with that. That kind of sunshine was exactly what we intended."

Waiting 60 days to reveal certain bids was part of a compromise to prevent a lawsuit. Constellation Energy said a 48-hour transparency rule would require wholesalers to reveal sensitive information and destroy their business.

TXU Wholesale, now a unit of Energy Future Holdings called Luminant, argued at the time that disclosing bid information could even help competitors raise market prices, not lower them.

A small fraction of power trades over the spot market. Most retail electricity companies buy power directly from wholesalers.

But the wholesale market tends to influence negotiation of those one-on-one deals, the report states. Ultimately, the wholesale trades affect all consumers.

The report also states a common complaint about deregulation among consumer advocates. In a regulated environment, the PUC sets consumer rates based on utility costs plus profit margin.
"Deregulation has broken the long-standing bond between what it actually costs to generate electricity and what consumers ultimately pay," the report states.

Commodity markets tend to set prices based on supply and demand, rather than the cost to provide the commodity.
Read more in the Dallas Morning News

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Southlake gas drilling debate: Did city drag its feet or show needed caution?

By AMAN BATHEJA - Fort Worth Star Telegram - May 3, 2009
Gas drilling screeched to a halt in Southlake months ago, but it’s emerged as an issue in the mayoral race all the same.

Mayor Pro Tem John Terrell is vying with former Mayor Rick Stacy to be the city’s new leader.

Stacy argues that Southlake has been run ineffectually since he stepped down in 2003. As one example, he has repeatedly said the city missed out on a multimillion-dollar payday by not leasing its mineral rights before the natural gas market collapsed.

"It didn’t take 18 months to write the U.S. Constitution. Why would it take 18 months to write the ordinance?" Stacy said. "To miss that window of opportunity for the taxpayers, that cost us probably $12 [million] or $13 million."

The city spent well over a year holding public meetings on drilling before finally adopting a revised drilling ordinance last May. Before that, Southlake allowed drilling only in industrial areas. By last fall, the decline in natural gas prices had prompted most drilling companies to stop signing new leases.
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
On his campaign Web site, Terrell describes himself as "a prime architect" of the new ordinance. He said the city needed to make sure that residents had time to have their say. The city needed to have the revisions in place before leasing its minerals rights to ensure that a drilling company followed the stricter rules. The city will lease its mineral rights when natural gas prices rebound, he said.

"There’s always a way to spin any story," Terrell said. "To me, our safety and our property values were far more important than the city retaining and extracting our minerals early."

1,000-foot setback

City Attorney Allen Taylor echoed Terrell’s argument. He noted that a drilling company that signed a contract before the new ordinance was approved would not have had to honor the revised ordinance’s required 1,000-foot setback for wells.

In October, the city issued a request for proposals to lease the mineral rights on its property, 520 acres on 46 sites scattered around the city. The request specified that a proposal must include a bonus of at least $20,000 per acre and a royalty of 25 percent or more of all revenue from oil and gas produced from the land.

The city received no responses, city spokeswoman Pilar Schank said. City staff spent time working with the council to create the request and issued it once "it met expectations," she said.

Karen Whitaker helped organize the White Chapel Corridor group in Southlake, whose members received signing bonuses of over $20,000 an acre for its mineral rights last summer. She questions why the city didn’t sell its mineral rights last summer as well, soon after the new ordinance was approved.

"We hit it at the perfect time, and I think at that point, if you were hitting your ear to the ground, you would have known the time was right," Whitaker said.

Whitaker said the bonus money would have been put to good use and agrees with Stacy that the city dragged its feet. "We need a rec center for our teens. There’s infrastructure that needs to be completed to handle our growth," Whitaker said. "We don’t have that, and that was free money."

Shortsighted criticism?

Southlake resident Tommy Pennington said he is comfortable with how the city handled the drilling issue.

"I’d love to see the city get the money, but at the same time I think we have to have our plan be solid instead of asking for forgiveness later when the damage is done," Pennington said.

Gene Powell, publisher of the Barnett Shale Newsletter, said the intense competition by drilling companies to sign up property owners is probably gone for good.

"I don’t think we’ll ever see bonus money anywhere near the range it was," Powell said.

Despite the worry about missed opportunities, Powell said, the focus on bonus payments was shortsighted. "The publicity has really been over the bonus money, which is wrong," Powell said. "The real money is in the royalties."

Whenever drilling companies did start signing up people again, Powell said, he expected royalty offers would be around the same levels they were last year.
AMAN BATHEJA, 817-390-7695

Travel to other worlds ... UTA Planetarium

Immersive full-dome 3-D Digital planetarium show narrated by Ewan McGregor (Obi wan Kepobi from Star Wars) - Astronaut takes you exporing the worlds of inner and outer space. The movie is projected all around you. You recline in specially constructed chairs which enables you to comfortably view the immersive full-dome planetarium show. Astronaut! (produced from the National Space Centre in England) goes beyond the stereotypical space movie. Experience a rocket launch from inside the body of the astronaut. Float around the international Space Station moving thorugh the microscopic regions of the human body! Discover the beauty and perils as "Chad", the test astronaut experiences everything thrown at him.

Summer Schedule (June 2-August 26):


shows at the UTA Planetarium.

Wed. through Saturdays at 11 a.m.
and Thursday at 7:00 p.m.

Cosmic CSI

shows at the UTA Planetarium 3-D Digital Dome.

Wed. through Saturdays at 2 p.m.

Rock Hall of Fame 1 (The Original)

shows at the UTA Planetarium.

Thursday at 8:00 p.m.

Read more (Warning their flat dull website doesn't give much of a glimmer of the multi-dimensional experience you'll have once you enter the dome of the UTA Planetarium!)

Admission: Adults: $5.00

Seniors, Students, Children: $4.00

UTA Faculty, Staff & Alumni (with ID): $3.00

UTA Studens (with ID): $2.00

Groups of 10 or more with reservation: $3.00

Call 817 272-1183 or e-mail planetarium@uta.edu