Transmission and distribution line construction · Colorado

104975 - CSU Sustainable Energy Plan CMGC

Colorado Springs, CO · ~36 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
0.0
Avg TCR
2.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

104975 - CSU Sustainable Energy Plan CMGC runs at 0% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Transmission and distribution line construction workplace, earning a grade C.

104975 - CSU Sustainable Energy Plan CMGC: 0.0 TCR = 0% of Transmission and distribution line construction BLS 2.8 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

104975 - CSU Sustainable Energy Plan CMGC safety composite

104975 - CSU Sustainable Energy Plan CMGC scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 100% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 52%), blended into one 0-100 breakdown against same-industry peers. A missing measure drops out and redistributes its weight rather than deflating the score. This is a per-dimension breakdown, distinct from the single letter grade above it (which weights TCR alone against the BLS industry benchmark).

B

80/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
A 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 100% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 78% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 52% of industry peers

Benchmarked live against every credibly-rated employer in the same NAICS industry code in the current OSHA extract (a segment must have at least 8 rated peers to benchmark). Not a legal or compliance determination; PlainSafetyScore's own weighting (TCR 40%, DART 35%, fatalities 25%).

104975 - CSU Sustainable Energy Plan CMGC held a steady TCR band

104975 - CSU Sustainable Energy Plan CMGC's TCR held near 0.0 from 0.0 in 2022 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 0.0 TCR.

2022=0.0 · 2023=0.0 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 237130 · Colorado Springs, CO AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade C · TCR 0.0 · 0% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #0/65
  • PHOTO 15-100 IN
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 0 inj
  • SIZE ~36 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: 15-100 IN (0.0 TCR gap)

Read with this employer → · Industry book → · Colorado employers → · Look up another →

104975 - CSU Sustainable Energy Plan CMGC in the TCR neighbourhood

Average Total Case Rate among this establishment and nearest same-industry peers

TCR

What this shows 104975 - CSU Sustainable Energy Plan CMGC averages 0.0 TCR (0% of the Transmission and distribution line construction BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-09-26

104975 - CSU Sustainable Energy Plan CMGC TCR series: 2022=0 · 2023=0 · 2024=0 · BLS 2.8

Where 104975 - CSU Sustainable Energy Plan CMGC falls in its industry

1,605 Transmission and distribution establishments

Safer than 100% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Colorado alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #0 safest of 65 Transmission and distribution employers in Colorado.

104975 - CSU Sustainable Energy Plan CMGC (36 employees, TCR 0.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 74 employees and a TCR of 2.0 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 entities by Average employees (X) and Total Case Rate (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Larger & higher-riskSmaller & higher-riskLarger & saferSmaller & safer than peers 0100200300400500 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate 104975 - CSU Sustainable Energy Plan CMGC
104975 - CSU Sustainable Energy Plan CMGC (36 employees, TCR 0.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 74 employees and a TCR of 2.0

104975 - CSU Sustainable Energy Plan CMGC has fewer employees than the Transmission and distribution line const median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.0. Workforce size and injury rate do not always move together within the same industry -- some of its smaller peers run higher rates than its larger ones, and vice versa.

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2024 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2023 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

237130 · CO · Colorado Springs

1,605 Transmission and distribution line construction employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 9,007 rated employers in Colorado with headcount on file · 832 employers in Colorado Springs, CO · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel Establishment Metric
NAICS-TCR 15-100 IN 0.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Hanwha Q Cells USA Corp. 0.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR 105185 - IPP Repowering- 840MW 2x2x1 CC 0.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR 103171 - Huntington Beach Energy Project 0.1 TCR
STATE-SIZE Jacobs - CENTENNIAL - OMI 36 FTE
STATE-SIZE Greeley CO Yard 36 FTE
STATE-SIZE EFI Polymers 36 FTE
STATE-SIZE Kaufman & Robinson 36 FTE
CITY-NEAR University of Colorado Hospital Memorial Central 3,102 FTE
CITY-NEAR Amazon.com Services LLC - DEN4 2,948 FTE
CITY-NEAR Penrose Hospital 2,841 FTE
CITY-NEAR 05070001-050701 PENROSE HOSPITAL 2,391 FTE
NAT-TCR Pitman Glass Company 0.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Westell Inc Aurora 0.0 TCR
NAT-TCR EPIC Tampa 0.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Monster Energy Company 2535 Anselmo Dr 0.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE Phoenix West Avondale Courtyard 36 FTE
NAT-SIZE Materion - Wheatfield 36 FTE
NAT-SIZE South Woods by New Perspective 36 FTE
NAT-SIZE Midland Chutes 36 FTE

Rel codes: NAICS-TCR · STATE-SIZE · CITY-NEAR · NAT-TCR/NAT-SIZE cross-state. Read with this employer →

Data Source: OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA), mandatory establishment-level injury/illness reports. Grades compare employer Total Case Rate (TCR) to BLS IIF industry benchmarks. Data covers years reported by this establishment: 2024, 2023, 2022. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.