Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Waste To Fuels topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Company pitches pyrolysis biorefinery on DHHL land; beneficiaries and commissioners press for more study

Hawaiian Homes Commission · March 17, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Genesis Oahu presented an informational plan to build a pyrolysis-to-renewable-diesel facility on Department of Hawaiian Home Lands property in Kapolei, claiming large fuel output and job creation; commissioners and multiple public speakers raised questions about permits, truck traffic, community consultation and environmental risk.

Antonia Aalto, a Genesis Oahu representative, told the Hawaiian Homes Commission on March 17 that the company wants to build “a pyrolysis biophano refinery on DHHL land to turn 1,300 tons a day of waste into 22,000,000 gallons a year of renewable diesel.” The presentation, introduced by Frank Hall of DHHL’s land-management division, described the project as an enclosed, near-zero-emission facility backed by more than $300 million in financing and a technology partner with operational experience.

Why it matters: The project would place a large waste-processing and fuel-production facility on Hawaiian Home Lands in the Kapolei/Honoʻuliʻuli area, a location commissioners said must be evaluated for traffic, neighboring industrial and residential projects, beneficiary consultation and long-term trust obligations.

In the presentation, Genesis said the plant would create about 250 long-term local jobs, produce irrigation and potable-quality processed water, and avoid sending pyrolysis byproducts to a landfill. Aalto asserted the company has letters of intent from private haulers and said the product meets EPA standards as a drop-in diesel fuel; she also named local training partners and said the firm is prepared to start permitting with a targeted one-year timeline to construction readiness.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly pressed for details. One commissioner said the DHHL process under HRS 171-95.3 requires open competition and beneficiary engagement; Frank Hall confirmed the request is informational and that any lease would need to follow statutory leasing procedures and beneficiary consultation. Commissioners asked about off-take contracts, the capacity and track record of technology providers (a demonstration plant in Tennessee was cited), the projected profit figures and whether traffic and bridge capacity near the site had been addressed. Genesis representatives said private-hauler contracts exist and that the plant could be sited to use similar truck routing as the nearby waste-to-energy facility to avoid adding net traffic to residential streets.

Opposition and beneficiary concerns surfaced in public comment. Iman Kolai Manole, who identified himself as co-manager of Manopono LLC from Waianae, told the commission: “We will rise up against this issue. We will not tolerate the department thinking that it can just run roughshod over us by bringing people like this here to sweet-talk us.” Several other West Oʻahu and Waianae commenters said the company should meet with mainland-affected beneficiary communities before DHHL considered any lease, and warned of reported accidents and emissions from similar technologies in other countries.

The record contains conflicting numerical claims: Genesis repeated a production figure of roughly 22 million gallons per year and presented a pro forma range for annual net profits discussed in the meeting as about $100 million to $170 million; commissioners asked that financial models and off-take agreements be produced in writing.

What happens next: DHHL staff said this presentation was for information; any formal lease would have to return to the department for required beneficiary consultation, open competitive processes under state law and additional technical review. Commissioners encouraged the presenters to provide detailed engineering, traffic and environmental analyses and to meet directly with beneficiaries in affected communities.

The commission did not take a vote on the proposal at the March 17 meeting.