unfortunately, every one of those is trying to sell you something, or convince you there is an issue due to politics. I see superstorm sandy being brandied about in a few of these. Yes, it impacted a lot of people, but when you look at what actually happened, you will see that with the scope of the storm, we really got off pretty lucky. If you are interested in a decent non-political report on Sandy and the grid, read http://www.nerc.com/pa/rrm/ea/Oct2012HurricanSandyEvntAnlyssRprtDL/Hurricane_Sandy_EAR_20140312_Final.pdf I will say this. There are some very good recommendations there. Using steel or concrete poles instead of wood (increases expense and cost per pole though) will improve reliability in some instances, but I wonder about the ability for utilities to store and maintain large numbers of them to be on-hand as replacements after emergencies.
even the ASCE report exaggerates some claims. "Even a single line can not be taken out" Bull. In almost every case, a line can be taken out of service for an emergency. In fact, the grid must operate at a state of N-1...so if they lose any single element, they can not exceed the emergency limits of other lines. When they talk about lines operating beyond their design...umm No. While I don't know about distribution lines, if a transmission line exceeds the normal rating, or upon a valid contingency, exceeds the emergency rating, they must take steps to reduce the loading on those lines. Usually, that means dispatching generation "off cost" So instead of a cheaper generator producing electricity, they must run a most expensive one.
So why didn't they build the transmission system to move power from cheap generation to load in the first place? Because until 1996 and FERC order 888 and 889, extremely high voltage lines and even high voltage lines were built to transfer power from the local utilities generators to their customers, not from the middle of the country to the coast. Now that grid has been re-purposed, they find there are bottlenecks. This is to be expected. it's like saying that your gated residential street that used to be local traffic only is now open to everyone and it connects the mall to the local interstate by a 1/4 mile road instead of the 4 miles it takes for the normal way. So your street is now congested.
So why not build a bypass? NIMBY - Not In My Backyard. People love the idea of infrastructure improvements...the utility, road commission, etc comes along and says they are putting up a big transmission line/highway, etc behind your yard (not even on your property). Then the person who loved the idea of it starts writing letter, making complaints, and in general, tries to keep the project from impacting their property values. In fact, it usually takes 10+ years for permitting to go though and to get the easements on these major improvements. This adds a lot of time and expense. This NIMBY attitude is especially prevalent when it does not benefit you directly. Often times, the transmission line being added in your backyard will not lower the cost of your power bill, but instead provides additional reliability or cost reduction (usually both) to a city 60/100 miles away. These are being built, but it takes time. Also, lines are being restrung and upgraded. Breakers that have reached retirement age are being replaced, as are transformer. Electro-mechanical relays are being replaced with microprocessor relays. So yes, work is going on to improve and modernize the grid...but the people you are listening too want more of the money to go to them or the people that pay them...thus their reports.
