develop plans for the manufacture, storage, and installation of these recovery transformers.

Recommendation 9.2 Continue the development and demonstration of the advanced computational system currently funded by the Department of Homeland Security and underway at the Electric Power Research Institute. This system is intended to assist in supporting more rapid estimation of the state of the system and broader system analysis.

Recommendation 9.3 Develop a visualization system for transmission control centers which will support informed operator decision making and reduce vulnerability to human errors. R&D to this end is underway at the Electric Power Research Institute, Department of Energy, Consortium for Electric Reliability Technology Solutions, and Power System Engineering Research Center, but improved integration of these efforts is required.

Recommendation 9.4 Develop dynamic systems technology in conjunction with response demonstrations now being outlined as part of an energy efficiency initiative being formed by EPRI, the Edison Electric Institute, and DOE. These systems would allow interactive control of consumer loads.

Recommendation 9.5 Develop multilayer control strategies that include capabilities to island and self-heal the power delivery system. This program should involve close cooperation with the electric power industry, building on work in the Wide Area Management System, the Wide Area Control System, and the Eastern Interconnection Phasor Project.

Recommendation 9.6 Develop improved energy storage that can be deployed as dispersed systems. The committee thinks that improved lithium-ion batteries have the greatest potential. The development of such batteries, which might become commercially viable through use in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, should be accelerated.

The committee believes that electric power R&D budgets should be increased substantially, although there was no consensus as to the appropriate source of the funding. Resolution might come as a result of considering research policy options: What are the impacts if the funding comes from the government, or from private industry, or from some combination thereof? One possibility is a federally mandated program constructed such that each industry participant invests some fraction (say 3 percent) of the value-added portion of its revenues annually in R&D, that the expense is fully recoverable, and that the cost is allocated to every U.S. provider and consumer as fairly and equitably as possible. DHS should work with DOE and the Office of Management and Budget to substantially increase the level of federal basic technology research investment in power delivery.


EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2004. “Power Delivery System of the Future: A Preliminary Study of Costs and Benefits.” Palo Alto, Calif.: EPRI.

Farrell, A.E., H. Zerriff, and H. Dowlatabad. 2004. “Energy Infrastructure and Security.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 29: 421-469.

Galvin Electricity. 2006. Phase 1 Summary, The Galvin Electricity Initiative. Available at

King, D.E. 2006. “Electric Power Micro-grids: Opportunities and Challenges for an Emerging Distributed Energy Architecture.” Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa.

Morgan, M.G., and H. Zerriffi. 2002. “The Regulatory Environment for Small Independent Micro-Grid Companies.” Electricity Journal 15(9): 52-57.

Treasury (U.S. Department of the Treasury). 1986. Scientific Research Under IRC 501(c)(3). Treasury Regulation 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(5)(ii). Available at Accessed November 2007.

Zerriffi, H. 2004. “Electric Power Systems Under Stress: An Evaluation of Centralized Versus Distributed System Architectures.” Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa.

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement