Power generation, fossil fuel (e.g., coal, gas, oil), electric · Florida

Mitsubishi Power Americas (PGS-Service)

Orlando, FL · ~650 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
0.3
Avg TCR
1.2
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Mitsubishi Power Americas (PGS-Service) runs at 28% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Power generation, fossil fuel (e.g., coal, gas, oil), electric workplace, earning a grade A.

Mitsubishi Power Americas (PGS-Service): 0.3 TCR = 28% of Power generation, fossil fuel (e.g., coal, gas, oil), electric BLS 1.2 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Mitsubishi Power Americas (PGS-Service) safety composite

Mitsubishi Power Americas (PGS-Service) scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 94% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 42%), 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).

C

65/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
A 0.34 per 100 workers

Safer than 94% of industry peers

DART rate
D 0.11 per 100 workers

Safer than 42% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 51% 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%).

Mitsubishi Power Americas (PGS-Service) held a steady TCR band

Mitsubishi Power Americas (PGS-Service)'s TCR held near 0.2 from 0.2 in 2023 to 0.4 in 2024. In 2024, DART was 0.32× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2023=0.2 · 2024=0.4

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 221112 · Orlando, FL AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 0.3 · 28% of ind

  • DART 0.1 DART
  • RANK #6/43
  • PHOTO MCMEEKIN STEAM PLANT
  • BOOK 2y book
  • INJ 6 inj
  • SIZE ~650 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: MCMEEKIN STEAM PLANT (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Mitsubishi Power Americas (PGS-Service) in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Mitsubishi Power Americas (PGS-Service) averages 0.3 TCR (28% of the Power generation, fossil fuel (e.g., coal, gas, oil), electric BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

Mitsubishi Power Americas (PGS-Service) TCR series: 2023=0.2 · 2024=0.4 · BLS 1.2

Where Mitsubishi Power Americas (PGS-Service) falls in its industry

846 Power generation, fossil fuel establishments

Safer than 94% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Florida alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #6 safest of 43 Power generation, fossil fuel employers in Florida.

Mitsubishi Power Americas (PGS-Service) (650 employees, TCR 0.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 59 employees and a TCR of 1.5 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 0200400600800 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Mitsubishi Power Americas (PGS-Service)
Mitsubishi Power Americas (PGS-Service) (650 employees, TCR 0.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 59 employees and a TCR of 1.5

Mitsubishi Power Americas (PGS-Service) has more employees than the Power generation, fossil fuel (e.g., coa median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.5. 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 0.4 0.1 4 0 0
2023 0.2 0.0 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

221112 · FL · Orlando

846 Power generation, fossil fuel (e.g., coal, gas, oil), electric employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 26,569 rated employers in Florida with headcount on file · 1,997 employers in Orlando, FL · 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 MCMEEKIN STEAM PLANT 0.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR EIF Channelview Cogeneration LLC 0.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Buffalo Grove Facility 0.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR 00558 AMERICAN FORK SVC CTR 0.3 TCR
STATE-SIZE Ranger Construction-Field Operations 651 FTE
STATE-SIZE Florida DC6 649 FTE
STATE-SIZE FL0321SS 651 FTE
STATE-SIZE HCA Florida Sarasota Doctors Hospital 649 FTE
CITY-NEAR Universal Orlando Resort 20,343 FTE
CITY-NEAR Universal Parks and Resorts : UO 13,442 FTE
CITY-NEAR ADVENTHEALTH ORLANDO 11,412 FTE
CITY-NEAR Florida Hospital Orlando 10,318 FTE
NAT-TCR Grady Management Inc 0.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Mason Road Sheet Metal Inc 0.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Superior Petroleum Services 0.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Bath Co Pw St 0.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE AS-Murfreesboro Facility-00096 650 FTE
NAT-SIZE Taylor Company 650 FTE
NAT-SIZE University 650 FTE
NAT-SIZE Irving TX 650 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.