Little of the electrical generation and distribution system is still around from the 50s. Much of it listed as being from the 50s has been renovated and upgraded, often a bit at a time, over the following 30 years. Some things just don't need to be changed because electricity, and the basics of generation and distribution, haven't changed much since the 20s.

A few years ago I worked on an industrial plant which was wired in the early 30s. Electrically it was still sound and was still humming along without any major electrical issues. That said, it was totally obsolete and inadequate from a safety standpoint. It had bare, exposed buss bars (3P/480v), unenclosed knife switches, substandard space to work, knob and tube branch circuits and few equipment grounds. In some ways it was really easy to troubleshoot because everything was right out in the open and all the switch gear and buss bars ran nice and cool because it was all well ventilated because it was suspended in free air or bolted to a piece of slate.

That system kept chugging along because once you get a system that works, as long as it isn't overloaded or allowed to deteriorate, it will tend to keep working.

The majority of electrical generation and distribution dates back to the 70s. In and of itself this isn't a bad thing. It does mean that these systems don't use the advances made since then. The US, for the most part, doesn't have a 'smart grid' that can automatically compensate for shifting loads, and automatic monitoring, that would link in with a smart grid, is pretty rare but the systems keep working.

The biggest problem is not the dated nature of the system, even as we might benefit from it being modernized. The big problem is that we haven't, as a nation or through the power industry, invested on our electrical infrastructure. The government used to make investments but since the 80s the political dogma is that it is better to allow private industry to take the lead. Unfortunately private industry cannot justify major investments in infrastructure because they can use bottlenecks and unimproved distribution systems as a way to drive up prices and increase profits. These profits far exceed those which might be made selling the use of the infrastructure they might build.

ENRON made its profits, in part, by creating local shortages and bottlenecks, and profiting from the increased 'fair market' price shortages justified. Until ENRON self-destructed, after people asked uncomfortable questions, they were celebrated as market makers and innovators.

We presently have, for the most part, adequate generation capacity. The distribution system is adequate but a lot of it is in the wrong place, and very little of it fully benefits from advances made in the last thirty years.

Some of the variation is regional. In much of the southeast power is smaller scale and run by local or municipal power companies. This avoids much of market perversity seen in larger systems. If power is generated locally, and distributed as a municipal amenity there is no reason to put off updating the system and now easy way to deliver less and profit more.