← Risk register SOC 49-2094 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Electrical and Electronics Repairers, Commercial and Industrial Equipment

65,010 US workers · median $74,090/yr · Trades

SAFE

The core of this job is putting hands and meters on motor controls, PLCs, drives, switchgear, and industrial electronics in live plants — tracing intermittent faults, pulling boards, reterminating, and calibrating in dirty, energized, non-standardized environments that robotics cannot enter. AI absorbs the paperwork layer: interpreting schematics, suggesting fault trees, drafting service reports, and predicting failures from sensor data, which raises the diagnostic floor but does not replace the technician. The soft spot is licensure — most states require no specific license for equipment repair, so the moat is skill and physical access rather than a legal signature.

10-year outlook: Demand holds or grows as plants add automation and sensors that still break in physical ways, but AI-assisted diagnostics will compress the value of pure fault-code lookup and reward technicians who can program, commission, and take responsibility for energized work.

US employment, 2019–2025+10.3%
58,93065,010 workers

Dipped in 2020, then grew past where it started.

Median pay $59,300 → $74,090 -0.0% in real terms (nominal +24.9%, less ~25% US inflation over the period)

The job count is not the verdict

This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.

So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing. The marked year is 2020.

BLS projection, 2024–2034

-0.8% 61,100 → 60,700 on the projections basis

Hard to automate, but shrinking anyway

The work resists current AI, yet the BLS projects -0.8% by 2034. Whatever is shrinking this occupation, the evidence does not point to automation — demand, demographics, offshoring and industry decline all shrink jobs that no machine could do.

Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.

~4,700 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.

One email if this score changes. Watch as many occupations as you like from the same address — no account, and nothing is sent on a schedule, only when a verdict actually moves.

Also known as — 24 job titles this covers

Titles reported by people doing this work, from the US Department of Labor's O*NET survey. If your job title is here, this page is about your work even though the name doesn't match.

WiremanAerial ErectorRadar MechanicRadar RepairerGear TechnicianAerial InstallerRadar TechnicianScale TechnicianRepair SpecialistRepair TechnicianAmplifier MechanicControl TechnicianAutomation MechanicElectronic MechanicMetrology TechnicianMicrowave TechnicianMissile Pad MechanicAutomation TechnicianElectrical TechnicianElectronic TechnicianElectrician TechnicianAccess Control InstallerRadio Interference ExpertControl Systems Technician

Score — 67/100 resistance

Holding it up: embodiment (19/20). Weakest point: liability shield (7/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 16 + 19 + 7 + 11 + 14 = 67. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 16/20

Tasks largely resist digitisation Chasing an intermittent fault on a 20-year-old VFD or a legacy Allen-Bradley PLC5 means physically wiggling terminations, scoping waveforms at the drive output, and swapping suspect boards to isolate — the diagnosis lives in what your hands and meter find on undocumented, retrofitted equipment, which is why this sits at 16 rather than the 10-12 of technicians whose gear self-reports faults over a standard bus.

Embodiment 19/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments You are inside energized cabinets, on lifts at conveyor level, behind machine guards in hot and dusty plants, doing LOTO on gear that was never installed to drawing — 19 not 20 only because bench repair of pulled boards and cards is a real slice of the work and does happen in a controlled shop.

Liability shield 7/20

Certification preferred, not legally required No state requires a license to troubleshoot a servo drive or replace a controller card; what you carry is NFPA 70E arc-flash qualification, employer-issued qualified-person status, and manufacturer certifications on specific drive and PLC families — that keeps you above the uncertified 0-4 band but nowhere near an electrical contractor's or PE's personal signature.

Trust premium 11/20

Some relationship component Plant maintenance managers call the tech who already knows which of their four presses has the rewired cabinet and can be trusted not to bring the line down at shift change, and OEM service contracts often name individuals — but the work order is still fundamentally about the equipment getting fixed, so an unfamiliar competent tech gets the job at 11.

Judgment & accountability 14/20

Exists to be accountable for ambiguous calls Calling whether a warm switchgear section can run until the scheduled outage or must be dropped now, and deciding to re-energize after a repair, are your calls with an arc-flash and a six-figure downtime bill on either side of them — 14 rather than 17 because a plant engineer or the OEM signs off on major replacements and the scope of the ambiguity is one machine, not a whole facility.

Scored twice. An independent second run returned 67/100 — SAFE, agreeing with the verdict above.

This score sits on a verdict boundary. At 67/100 it is one point from EXPOSED. Re-scoring moves results by a point or two, so here the score is more informative than the label.

Confidence: high · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

What this job involves — and which parts are yours

The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.

AI already does these at usable quality

These still need a person

Active moats on the surviving side: embodiment, judgment, physical-presence

How to future-proof this job

Where to go deeper on what this job runs on: edX — operations management and process monitoring courses free to audit · Apprenticeship.gov — paid, employer-sponsored trade apprenticeships, searchable by trade and ZIP paid to train · Coursera — critical thinking and logic, audit free free to audit · Apprenticeship.gov — industrial maintenance and millwright programs paid to train · MIT OpenCourseWare — circuits, systems and diagnostic method, free and ungated free · Coursera — quality control and inspection courses, auditable free free to audit

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

What would move this back up — beyond any one person

The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 86/100, still SAFE.

6 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening liability shield +3

    Energized-work permits under NFPA 70E / OSHA 1910.333 becoming an insurer-audited artifact: property carriers (FM Global, Zurich) conditioning arc-flash and equipment-damage coverage on a named 'qualified person' signing the permit, the incident-energy analysis, and post-repair verification. This is already how some large plants operate contractually; generalizing it makes the named human legally exposed rather than merely competent.

  • already happening trust premium +3

    OEM-authorized-service structures tightening: manufacturers (Rockwell, Siemens, ABB) voiding warranty or blocking firmware/licence keys unless repair is performed by a factory-certified individual technician. Buyers then pay specifically for the credentialed person, not the cheapest hands. Already partly in force on drives and safety PLCs.

  • already happening task resistance +2

    Task-mix shift as AI absorbs the schematic-reading, fault-tree, and report tier: the residual day becomes intermittent-fault chasing, undocumented legacy retrofits, and calls where sensor data and the AI's prediction are wrong. Genuine two-tier occupation, but headroom is small because the score is already 16 and the physical tier was never the automatable part.

  • plausible liability shield +5

    State electrical licensing boards closing the 'maintenance/repair exemption' that currently lets industrial equipment repairers work energized gear without a journeyman or maintenance-electrician license — several states (e.g. Ohio, Texas, Washington) periodically revisit this exemption in board rulemaking. If repair of switchgear and motor control centers above a voltage threshold requires a licensed individual, the signature moat appears where there is none.

  • plausible liability shield +3

    IEC 62443 / NERC CIP-style OT cybersecurity regimes extending to plant floors, requiring a named, credentialed technician to attest to firmware and PLC logic changes made on-site — because an AI-suggested drive parameter or ladder-logic edit becomes an auditable configuration change requiring human attestation.

  • plausible judgment accountability +3

    Formal lockout/tagout and return-to-service authority being vested in the individual technician by union or site contract — the person who energizes owns the call, including overriding an AI 'safe to restart' recommendation. Visible in some IBEW and USW maintenance agreements and in pharma/food GMP requalification sign-offs.

The limit. Capability dimensions are near saturation; realistic upside is 8-12 points and lives almost entirely in liability_shield, which is the one dimension a state board or an insurer can change by writing a rule. Trust premium is capped because the buyer is a plant maintenance manager buying uptime, not a consumer buying humanness.

These are conditions, not forecasts — what would have to happen, not what will. Specific rules, cases and bills are named so you can go and check whether they exist and where they stand; verify before relying on any of them. Nothing here is legal or financial advice.

Where this work is, and what it pays there

BLS metro figures for 212 areas. The verdict above does not change by city — the rubric judges what the work involves, not where it happens — but pay and headcount do, and the national median hides a very wide range.

Most of these jobs

Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX 4,690 $77,880 +5%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 2,910 $73,530 -1%
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 1,300 $76,190 +3%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 1,230 $79,930 +8%
Denver-Aurora-Centennial, CO 1,060 $80,440 +9%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 1,050 $67,370 -9%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 980 $76,320 +3%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 960 $61,430 -17%

Best paid

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 600 $122,860 +66%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 910 $109,570 +48%
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX 400 $105,520 +42%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $74,090. Counts are jobs in that metro, not vacancies. Metros where the BLS suppressed the cell are absent rather than shown as zero.

Who is actually doing this — nobody, on the record

We have no reported case of a named organisation automating this occupation. Not one deployment, not one announcement.

That is worth saying out loud next to a score of 67. The verdict above is about what the work exposes — what current AI could do to these tasks. It is not a claim that anyone has done it. For this occupation those two things have come apart completely: the capability argument is on this page, and the evidence column is empty.

Read that as a gap in the reporting we can see, not proof of absence — the dispatch runs on English-language feeds and misses plenty. If you know of a case, tell us, or add a field report from inside the job.

Quick take — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

Field reports — what people say has changed

No field reports yet. A written account takes a paragraph rather than a tap, goes to an editor before it appears, and is the one thing on this page the rubric cannot produce on its own.

File a field report

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.

Watch this verdict
Kept current

Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.