As an EAA member, I too was surprised by Jack Pelton’s comment on an STC’ed fuel for experimental aircraft. While technically correct, STCs do not apply to non-certificated aircraft, the business plan for Swift and GAMI require buying the STC to in order to purchase their fuel at the delivery point. Perhaps a better process for GAMI/SWIFT use for E/AB aircraft is to require a one-time purchase of a “use-license” to buy their fuel. Cost would be based on the same engine HP rating system use for aircraft requiring an STC and would get your tail number in their purchase authorization system. My Honda powered E/AB does not like 100LL and it is almost impossible to find MOGAS or any UL fuel at airports in the southeast. Fortunately, non-ethanol 93UL is widely in costal Florida even though you have to haul to the airport.
As to fixing the problem, I expect it will take an Act of Congress to force the FAA off the EAGLE/PAFI path. They could start with simply declaring G100UL as an approved replacement fuel for any application requiring D910 rated fuel and waiving any fuel-based liability associated with using it. Or they could use the EAGLE funding line in the FY24-FY30 FAA budget to buy the G100UL technical data from GAMI and publish it as the ASTM specification. The only way you can fix the bureaucrats is to take away their money and authority.