To answer this, it's probably best to look at why electricity is so versatile, and once again I go back to 1861 and the Maxwell equations.
Prior to Maxwell, we knew about electricity but it wasn't useful to us, and certainly wasn't versatile. What Maxwell did was essentially integrate magnetism and electricity. In so doing, we found that with a specific set up, we could;
1) Generate energy by turning an axle, and
2) Turn an axle by applying electricity.
What we use electricity for today is far more versatile than that even because we learned how to convert that same electricity to light and heat as well, but when you get right down to it these two factors are what triggered the interest and investment in electrical power because we already knew how to harness steam, wind and water to turn axles, and now we could use the output to do a LOT more than just mill wheat. When you open them up, most electrical appliances that are not lamps or applied heaters like toasters and frypans use a small electrical motor somewhere to make an axle spin.
Blenders, vacuum cleaners, engravers, drills, washing machines and even electric cars all work because we can apply this transmitted and stored energy to generate angular momentum.
Now that we've covered that, what's more efficient and versatile? Well, right now in mathematics we're already integrating weak interaction with electromagnetic force. We have no idea how that will allow us to generate, transmit and store energy in the future, let alone the integration of Strong nuclear force or even Gravity.
Right now, the biggest challenge we have is Gravity. It's so exotic compared to the other 3 fundamental forces, so it's not the kind of thing that we can easily get around. But, if we had a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) that integrated all 4 fundamental forces, just like Maxwell took that number down from 5, who knows what control over energy we may have?
The short answer to your question is therefore that yes, there is probably a more efficient and versatile energy solution out there, but like all things we won't be able to engineer it until we understand the theoretical physics that makes it possible to do so.
Further, the moral of your question is never argue with the state as to the practicality of funding theoretical science in the universities; it's from such work that the theories are created that allow the engineers to do the practical work that would be impossible otherwise. Before the Engineers know how something can be done, the scientists have to know why something can be done.