Many Digest readers know quite a lot about the 15 percent ethanol blends (E15) which have been long proposed, and long opposed, for the United States. Even when higher ethanol blends are an everyday reality elsewhere around the world. You probably know the basics of E15’s appeal:
- It’s Sustainable. E15 reduces greenhouse gas emissions. It’s renewable. It’s made in America.
- It’s Affordable. Cheaper at the pump. Higher octane for less money. Better for engines, better for budgets.
- It’s Reliable. Approved for 96% of cars. Proven by labs. Endorsed by regulators.
- It’s Available. Billions of gallons. Billions of bushels. Infrastructure ready.
So, why does adoption feel so patchy? Why does policy momentum stall again and again? Yes, incumbents are nay-sayers, as they are in any transition, and sometimes they are powerful. Horse ranchers weren’t pro-automobile. Paper mills weren’t pro-internet. Blockbuster wasn’t pro-Netflix. Yet, elsewhere, the future arrived, and right quick.
Why not for E15? After all, prices are aligned, technology’s there, feedstock’s available and affordable. Producers have the products. Retailers are happy when customers are. It couldn’t be better. This is truly the bioeconomy moment, so says traditional analysis, which I have summed up, here below, based on our many years of Digest coverage.
Traditional Analysis: Why E15 Should Have Taken Off by Now
✅ Technology Readiness
- Approved by EPA since 2011 for all 2001+ vehicles — over 96% of cars on the road.
- Proven compatibility with existing retail infrastructure at over 3,500 sites.
- Extensive testing conducted by DOE, EPA, and national labs across fuel systems, durability, and emissions.
✅ Economic Advantage
- E15 sells at a consistent discount compared to E10.
- Total estimated consumer savings from full nationwide adoption: $20.6 billion per year, according to Growth Energy.
- Minimal infrastructure cost for retailers switching from E10.
✅ Environmental & Energy Security Benefits
- GHG reduction of 17.62 million tons/year, equivalent to removing 3.85 million cars from the road.
- Domestic production of ethanol supports 188,000 additional jobs and $66.3 billion in GDP impact.
- Higher octane (88 AKI) supports cleaner, more efficient combustion.
✅ Regulatory Headroom
- 2025: EPA greenlit year-round sales in 8 states accounting for 14.79% of U.S. gasoline demand.
- Bipartisan support: Fischer-Klobuchar-Duckworth legislation pending.
✅ Consumer Adoption Pathway
- In markets with access, consumer uptake is strong, especially in Midwest states like Iowa and Minnesota.
But behind the headlines, a different pattern emerges. Market penetration is less than 4 percent, to date, policy waivers are needed for summer sales and are not slam-dunk no-brainers to obtain. Adoption is slow, constrained, and volatile. Momentum rises, then stalls. Legislation sputters. Some states lead, but the national picture remains fragmented. In short: this is not what we’d expect if the dashboard were giving us a reliable signal. What happened? Where’s the disconnect, when the lens we are applying to this opportunity is showing green lights across the dashboard? Why did E15 ethanol with all its many benefits become long ago the de facto standard in the United States? Is the data wrong?
Addressing a disconnect
I decided some time ago to investigate if, just maybe, the problem was not the data but the lens. Everything looks rosy in the white papers, spreadsheets and infographics — but maybe that doesn’t quite capture it. In investigating and building a new framework, I discovered that if it moves, it burns. If it burns, it builds entropy. If it can’t manage that entropy, it collapses. And everything moves, everything’s in motion. Companies. People. The bioeconomy. Policy. Finance. Even evolution. Even the cosmos. Even the things we do for fun. Even E15 ethanol.
So, this new framework sets out to look beyond seeing systems such as fuel distribution as machines— rather, to measure the motion. Because we have troubles in E15, we all recognize it, I expect — political headwinds, long timelines, court troubles, adoption resistance, and tougher times for ethanol producers than they deserve on the merits. What I’d like to show you today is how E15 ethanol adoption looks according to the General Theory of Evolutionary Systems & Information, the GTESI framework. It’s new, but I think it captures things that we know intuitively are true, that our traditional lenses do not.
GTESI uses the same inputs as traditional analysis but because it asks different questions, it has different outcomes.
How GTESI looks at E15 ethanol adoption
GTESI identifies high Symbolic Compression Divergence (SCD) and a rising Trust Ritual Failure Index (TRFI) as key stress points. It’s not just a fuel problem—it’s a system struggling with entropy export at the infrastructure, narrative, and regulatory levels.
The GTESI Risk Panel:
| Indicator | Status | Interpretation |
| SCD | 🔴 High | Narrative outpaces regulation, and market behavior. |
| TRFI | 🟠 Rising | Waivers, rule reversals, court challenges create fragile symbolic trust. |
| IPR | 🟠 Moderate | Investment persistence without matching traction. |
| EED | 🔴 Widening | Infrastructure bottlenecks, consumer confusion, and regulatory drift all limit entropy export. |
GTESI scores thermodynamic stress in motion systems — not how well E15 performs, but how well it persists.
GTESI Decoder Ring: Reading the Signals of Systemic Stress
| Indicator | What It Measures | Warning Signal | Example in E15 |
|---|---|---|---|
| IPR (Inverse Persistence Ratio) | Value without memory | When a system’s symbolic strength (e.g., policy, visibility, headlines) outlasts actual performance or scale. | E15 remains a political talking point, but has only 3,000 stations out of 150,000. |
| SCD (Symbolic Compression Divergence) | Narrative drift | When the public story no longer matches the system’s operational motion. | “E15 is clean and available” vs actual fractured adoption and regulatory delays. |
| TRFI (Trust Ritual Failure Index) | Breakdown in symbolic trust cycles | When filings, guidance, waivers, or leadership shifts create symbolic instability. | Summer waivers, litigation, changing EPA rules create investor and consumer whiplash. |
| EED (Entropy Export Deficit) | Bottled-up pressure | When the system can’t convert innovation or effort into scalable, persistent structure. | Producers are ready, infrastructure incentives exist—but few pumps upgrade, and sales stay flat. |
- IPR: Inverse Persistence Ratio
E15 enjoys widespread political support and infrastructure funding—but market traction has lagged. The symbol persists (E15 waivers, RVO targets), but throughput is marginal. - SCD: Symbolic Compression Divergence
“E15 is approved,” “E15 is clean,” “E15 is cheaper”—yet only 3,000 of 150,000 U.S. fueling stations offer it. The public symbol no longer matches the system’s true capacity. - TRFI: Trust Ritual Failure Index
Frequent waivers, litigation, stalled rulemaking, and mixed federal-state signals undermine long-term market trust. - EED: Entropy Export Deficit
High production capacity, but insufficient retail adoption and narrative trust to turn motion into durable system memory.
Sector-Level GTESI: The E15 Narrative Under Strain
a. Compression Without Recombination. E15 has become a symbol of what should be possible—environmentally sound, domestically produced, technologically viable—but isn’t yet structurally inevitable. The system has compressed a hopeful future into a regulatory patchwork without fully recombining the stakeholders (fuel providers, automakers, regulators, and retailers) into a durable network of motion and trust.
b. Ritual Fractures. Summer waivers. Court reversals. Changing EPA leadership. Missed Congressional windows. The ritual cadences of trust (such as RFS updates, guidance cycles, infrastructure grants) are increasingly erratic.
c. Infrastructure Misalignment. Despite federal and state incentives (e.g., HBIIP), single-station owners remain overburdened by upgrade costs—especially below-ground infrastructure. GTESI sees this as a classic entropy bottleneck: symbolic trust (policy waivers) fails to translate into durable motion (fueling upgrades).
d. Symbolic Drift and Conflict. E15 is a proxy battleground between biofuel and EV visions of the energy future. The Elon Musk intervention in Congress, for instance, reflects how compressed symbolic frames (biofuel vs battery) distort collaboration and coordination. E15 is caught between competing myths of American energy independence.
Comparing traditional analysis with GTESI
In this table, I’ve set out how I understand traditional analysis, after years of covering it as a journalist, and comparing it to the new framework with respect to E15 bottlenecks.
| Bottleneck View | Traditional Analysis Lens | GTESI Lens | Implication |
| Policy Resistance | Regulatory capture, fossil lobbying, legal hurdles | 🟠 SCD: Symbolic Compression Divergence — multiple, misaligned narratives (“cleaner fuel,” “engine damage,” “seasonal waiver”) | Fixing this isn’t just lobbying harder — it’s recompressing a fractured narrative across consumer, regulatory, and environmental domains. |
| Infrastructure Gaps | Incompatible pumps, tanks, or supply chains | 🔴 EED: Entropy Export Deficit — fuel architecture built for E10 persists; new motion is blocked by old memory | Solution isn’t just grants for pump upgrades — it’s coupling infrastructure rollout with high-trust consumer rituals and compressed messaging. |
| Consumer Hesitancy | Lack of education, engine myths, fuel price concerns | 🔴 TRFI: Trust Ritual Failure Index— disrupted signaling cycles from regulators, inconsistent availability | Instead of re-educating, focus on ritualizing purchase behavior: signage, loyalty programs, usage guarantees. Treat it like behavioral onboarding. |
| Political Capital Focus | Farm lobby strength, renewable fuel standard leverage | 🟠 IPR: Inverse Persistence Ratio — symbolic strength of E15 narrative persists without memory-based action | More political noise isn’t more action. Re-anchor symbolic persistence to reliable throughput (stations, gallons sold, engines covered). |
GTESI’s Key Takeaway:
E15’s challenges aren’t just technical or political — they are symbolic. The system is leaking energy via narratives, trust rituals, and entropy export or lack thereof. GTESI shifts the focus from persuasion to compression, from lobbying to ritual, and from narrative repetition to systemic recomposition.
GTESI Scorecard for E15
Here is the GTESI Scorecard for E15, visualized as a stress indicator dashboard.
I hope this helps to communicate at a glance how different systemic pressure points are affecting E15 adoption:
- IPR (Inverse Persistence Ratio): 🟠 Moderate – Symbolic momentum persists, but foundational support is fraying.
- SCD (Symbolic Compression Divergence): 🔴 High – Public narrative has diverged from policy and infrastructure alignment.
- TRFI (Trust Ritual Failure Index): 🟠 Rising – Conflicting regulations and regulatory whiplash are eroding institutional trust.
- EED (Entropy Export Deficit): 🔴 Widening – The system is struggling to convert effort into scale or persistence.
Traditional techno-economic or policy analysis tends to view adoption challenges as a matter of misaligned incentives, political gridlock, or infrastructure inertia. So, efforts focus on coalition-building, lobbying, or regulatory workaround — all valid. But in GTESI terms, many of these are narrative-driven entropy recycling loops: they circulate symbolic energy without resolving the thermodynamic and informational bottlenecks that block persistence.
GTESI Takeaway: Real barriers exist outside of traditional analysis
The E15 rollout is not merely stalled due to political whim or consumer confusion—it’s a system experiencing symbolic overreach, ritual breakdown, and entropy bottlenecks. Without a recompressed, shared story that aligns regulations, infrastructure, and investment confidence, the GTESI framework says that the transition will continue to falter. Future transitions to, say E30 blends, for which the arguments are rich and meaningful, will be even more difficult to achieve.
Recommendations
- Narrative Recompression: Align messaging with realistic infrastructure timelines and clearly communicate RVP and compatibility standards to consumers and retailers.
- Trust Ritual Redesign: Move from waivers to codified, reliable guidance. Stabilize EPA signaling to reduce TRFI.
- Infrastructure Synchronization: Focus public funding on small retailers, especially underground upgrades, to close the EED.
- Symbolic Bridging: Frame E15 as cooperative, not competitive with electrification—both are entropy export solutions, not rivals.
More about GTESI
GTESI does not coerce. It invites clarity. It invites systems (and people) to act in accordance with the entropy they feel. To seek persistence not through rigidity, but coherence. It aims to provide conceptual rigor and practical fluency for decision-makers who have seen GTESI in action. The framework looks forwards as well as backwards: there are symbolic stress watchlists, sector-wide trend forecasts, or pre-collapse patterns alerts. GTESI is not hostile analysis. It’s adaptive pattern recognition. It doesn’t scold leaders — it explains why some leaders feel stuck. It doesn’t shame organizations — it gives them a mirror for earlier, cleaner course correction. This is about systemic narratives, not failures, for readers who have come to believe that there is merit in considering thermodynamic persistence is a unifying principle for systems in motion.
At first, there’s the “I don’t get it” moment, followed by the “Sounds fancy. Who’s using it?” challenge. That’s understandable.
GTESI is dense, cross-disciplinary, and emergent. It is not backed by a “school,” movement, or institution. There’s no standard onboarding, no fixed authorship tradition. New ideas feel suspicious. So, this GTESI framework must create real impact in practice. I hope this analysis begins to create that trust, if you’ve looked at E15 ethanol and wondered why it’s not available everywhere.
What do these concepts and acronyms mean?
IPR: Inverse Persistence Ratio: “Value without memory.”
IPR measures the gap between valuation persistence (e.g., market cap, investor enthusiasm) and operational memory (e.g., track record, cash flow, physical plant, ecosystem stability). A high IPR means price is sticking around — but the foundation is eroding. It’s like watching smoke in the sky when no-one is yelling “fire!”. Warning sign of symbolic inflation, over-valuation, or collapse risk.
SCD: Symbolic Compression Divergence: “When your story breaks from your system.”
SCD tracks the misalignment between public narrative (press releases, investor calls, strategic decks) and internal motion (technical progress, team stability, delivery timelines). A high SCD means the symbolic layer is leaking entropy — the story is losing coherence. Early indicator of reputational fragility, trust erosion, or memetic drift.
TRFI: Trust Ritual Failure Index: “Rituals keep systems sane.”
TRFI monitors the health of symbolic trust rituals: SEC filings, earnings calls, guidance cycles, leadership continuity, board signaling. A rising TRFI signals missed filings, ambiguous metrics, unexplained personnel shifts — cracks in the ceremonial foundation. When ritual breaks down, systems lose legitimacy — with investors, partners, regulators.
EED: Entropy Export Deficit: “Adaptation stalls, pressure builds.”
EED scores how well a system is exporting entropy — through innovation, expansion, alliances, new markets. A high EED means the system is hoarding entropy instead of offloading it — a pressure cooker instead of a pressure valve. Strong predictor of layoffs, retrenchment, sudden pivots, or collapse.
Core GTESI Concepts
| Concept | Description |
| Entropy | The unavoidable cost of motion — chaos, decay, heat, or disorder |
| Compression | Turning motion into form: stories, codes, contracts, laws, habits |
| Memory | What persists after motion: infrastructure, trust, metrics, symbols |
| Entropy Export | The system’s ability to offload complexity — via trade, growth, simplification |
| Symbolic Trust | Faith in the signs of persistence: brands, rituals, filings, forecasts |
| Narrative Compression | Aligning story and system — if your story diverges from your structure, collapse risk rises |
How GTESI Works: A Diagnostic Tool
GTESI evaluates the motion-memory balance in a system. GTESI doesn’t replace financial models — it explains why they fail when they do. A healthy system shows
- Entropy exported (not bottled)
- Symbols that match reality
- Rituals that maintain trust
- Compression that enables repetition (manufacturing, contracts, team function)
A brittle system shows:
- IPR: Inverse Persistence Ratio — symbols outlasting performance
- SCD: Symbolic Compression Divergence — narrative drift
- TRFI: Trust Ritual Failure Index — cadence breakdowns, filings missed, metrics blurred
- EED: Entropy Export Deficit — innovation that fails to scale or simplify
GTESI Background and Provenance
GTESI (General Theory of Evolutionary Systems and Information) is a systems-level diagnostic framework rooted in thermodynamics, information theory, economics, and physics. It explains why some systems persist, evolve, or collapse—and how symbolic structure interacts with motion and entropy. It’s grounded in foundational work by:
- Claude Shannon (information compression)
- David Ricardo (comparative advantage and exchange)
- Albert Einstein (energy and curvature)
- Richard Feynman (entropy and systems modeling)
The GTESI method analyzes systems through metrics such as IPR, SCD, TRFI, and EED, drawing attention to where collapse or breakthrough is likely and what interventions can recompress the narrative to recover persistence. Further detail will appear in the forthcoming book Everything in Motion, which outlines the GTESI framework’s origin, math, and use cases across biology, finance, climate, and cultural narrative.
About the Author
