Power generation, geothermal · California
Heber Geothermal Facility
Heber, CA · ~25 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.
- F
- Failing Safety Record
- 3.7
- Avg TCR
- 1.2
- Industry avg
- 0
- Fatalities
The verdict
Heber Geothermal Facility runs at 312% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Power generation, geothermal workplace, earning a grade F.
- F
- Failing Safety Record
- 3.7
- avg TCR · per 100 workers
- 1.2
- industry benchmark (BLS)
- 2
- recordable injuries tracked
Grade compares Heber Geothermal Facility's OSHA Total Case Rate of 3.7 to the Power generation, geothermal BLS benchmark of 1.2 (312% of benchmark) across 2 years of Form 300A filings (2016–2024). <a href="/methodology">See methodology</a> for reporting-limitation caveats.
Injury rate over time
Heber Geothermal Facility's yearly Total Case Rate, against the 1.2 industry benchmark.
Where Heber Geothermal Facility falls in its industry
19 Power generation, geothermal establishmentsSafer than 21% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.3.
Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #6 safest of 9 Power generation, geothermal employers in California.
Trend analysis for Heber Geothermal Facility
Between 2018 and 2019, Heber Geothermal Facility's Total Case Rate improved from 4.8 to 2.6 recordable injuries per 100 full-time workers, a 46% decrease across 1 year of OSHA reporting.
The safest year on record was 2019, at a TCR of 2.6, while 2018 saw the highest rate, at 4.8, a spread of 2.2 points between the best and worst reporting years. That's a comparatively narrow spread, suggesting a fairly consistent safety record across the 2 years with a usable rate on file, rather than one outlier year skewing the multi-year average.
Summed across those 2 reporting years, Heber Geothermal Facility recorded 2 total injuries and illnesses, with no fatalities reported in any of those years. Readers comparing establishments should weigh the 2-year trend above alongside establishment size, since a larger workforce naturally accumulates more raw incidents even at a lower per-100-worker rate.
Verify This Employer with OSHA
The 2 injuries shown on this page for Heber Geothermal Facility are sourced from its own 2 years of mandatory OSHA Form 300A summaries. Cross-check the underlying establishment record directly against the federal source, name, NAICS classification, recordable case totals, and inspection history are all searchable on OSHA's Establishment-Specific Injury and Illness Data system.
Verify on OSHA Establishment SearchSource: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Establishment-Specific Injury and Illness Data. NAICS 221116 - Power generation, geothermal.
DART Rate, Transparent Calculation (2019)
What is the DART rate formula?
DART (Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred) is computed by OSHA as incidents × 200,000 ÷ hours worked. The 200,000-hour denominator equals roughly 100 full-time workers, which lets establishments of very different sizes be compared directly.
0 DART incidents × 200,000 ÷ 76,178 hours worked = 0.00 DART
Methodology: 29 CFR 1904, OSHA Form 300A recordkeeping
Cross-Validating Context, Establishment vs Industry vs State
| Benchmark | TCR | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Heber Geothermal Facility (this establishment) | 3.74 | OSHA ITA Form 300A, 2-year avg |
| Power generation, geothermal industry avg | 1.20 | BLS IIF, NAICS 221116 |
| California state avg (all industries) | 5.64 | OSHA ITA, state-level rollup |
Industry benchmarks: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities (IIF) program
Reportable Incident Timeline
Year-by-year reportable incidents (recordable injuries + illnesses + fatalities) submitted by Heber Geothermal Facility to OSHA's Injury Tracking Application. Each row anchors to OSHA's inspection records search where you can pull the underlying inspection case numbers and citations for that establishment-year.
- 2019: 1 reportable incidents · 1 injuries, 0 illnesses, 0 fatalities - OSHA inspection records (case numbers)
- 2018: 1 reportable incidents · 1 injuries, 0 illnesses, 0 fatalities - OSHA inspection records (case numbers)
Source: OSHA Inspection Information System (IMIS) - inspection case-number records
Year-by-Year Safety Data
| Year | TCR | DART | Injuries | Illnesses | Fatalities |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
What this grade means for you
Use this grade as a relative read on Heber Geothermal Facility's reported OSHA injury record versus its Power generation, geothermal peers, not a verdict on whether any single site is safe today.
- At 312% of the Power generation, geothermal benchmark, Heber Geothermal Facility reports more injuries than typical peers, ask specifically how the employer is reducing them. Know your rights
- Judge this record against the wider Power generation, geothermal sector, where injury rates vary widely, before comparing it in isolation. See the industry
- Grades reflect 2016–2024 filings; check the latest establishment record straight from OSHA, or look up a different employer. Look up another
Safety grades reflect employers' self-reported OSHA Form 300A filings from 2016 to 2024 and can lag current conditions. A grade is not a guarantee that any specific workplace is safe or unsafe today. See our methodology and disclaimer.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Heber Geothermal Facility's safety grade?
How many injuries has Heber Geothermal Facility reported?
Similar Employers
Matched by safety record across the industry, by workforce size within California, and by nearby establishments in Heber - a different peer set than the category browse links below.
Similar TCR (~3.7)
Similar size (~25 workers)
Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.
Every figure and grade on PlainSafetyScore is computed directly from OSHA's published Injury Tracking Application data and BLS industry benchmarks, no number is typed in by an editor. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these safety grades, or report a data error. Data current as of 2016-2024 OSHA ITA release.