I think the wording of the report leaves something to be desired. They don't put it in terms people are likely to understand.

The terminology is worded so that it is easy to jump to extreme conclusions. The phrase disruptions for several years might be interpreted as no power for years but the more logical conclusion is cycling brownouts with regular short-term disruptions during several years as power supply resources are juggled. The multi-trillion dollar loss figure seems to assume nobody does anything to compensate or correct. Most automated systems can be run manually but it takes more hands.

The wording about loss of fuel and medications seems needlessly alarmist because most of those systems have backup generation on hand. Reallocation of surviving power, portable generation and transfer of resources requiring power out of affected zones should minimize losses.

The transformers they are talking about are not the sort you see hanging on a power pole. The units they are talking about are quite large and quite expensive. Which tells you why there aren't many spares on hand. Until you need one they are very expensive paperweights. Most power companies, POCOs, are reluctant about keeping on hand a capital investment they may not need for two hundred years. And when you need it, seeing as that it has been sitting there for so long, there is a good chance it won't work or be compatible with the present days systems.

Last comparable even was " the great magnetic storm of May 14-15, 1921" roughly 88 years ago. Compare transformers from back then to present and you can see that laying in spares cannot be a complete solution. It may be possible to bulk-up the supply on hand if the POCOs were to cooperate and invest in a few but complete replacement isn't in the cards.

Also you have to read on page 79:
"With respect to the entire grid, remedial measures to reduce GIC levels are needed and are cost-effective. The installation of supplemental transformer neutral ground resistors to reduce GIC flows is relatively inexpensive, has low engineering trade-offs, and can produce 60-70 percent reductions of GIC levels for storms of all sizes."

I'm not sure why they chose to use the wording they did. A certain amount of flamboyance is justified to get attention but this seems a little too provocative. It might be interesting to find out who pushed for the report and who funded it. The 'push political agenda and control people by scaring the pants off them folks' are still out there.