Henry Curtis, a staunch opponent of the stalled Honua Ola Bioenergy project on Hawaii island, is being accused by the company of trying to sabotage its regulatory appeal by sending fake emails to the state Public Utilities Commission.

Hu Honua Bioenergy LLC alleged in a letter filed Friday to the PUC that Curtis, executive director of the nonprofit environmental group Life of the Land, was responsible for seven spoof emails in support of the project that caught the PUC’s attention when verification replies revealed the emails were not sent by the rightful account holder.

The company, which does business as Honua Ola Bioenergy, said it traced the emails to Curtis through an IP address associated with his Honolulu residence. The bogus emails brought into question the legitimacy of all public comments in the case, and the PUC said in a letter Wednesday to all parties on the docket that it would redact future public comments from public view until such time that they could be authenticated.

Curtis, when apprised of the accusations Friday night and asked if he was responsible for the fake emails, responded: “No way. Absolutely no way.”

On Saturday, Life of the Land attorney Lance Collins denied the nonprofit and Curtis were involved in the “author-impersonated public comments” and said legal action may be taken against Hu Honua.

“Innuendo and insinuation alluded to, but not actually stated or proven, by your client is not evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Curtis or Life of the Land but rather, if further pursued, may give rise to claims against Hu Honua for fraud, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, false light, invasion of privacy and defamation,” Collins said in a letter to Bruce Voss, co-counsel for Hu Honua.

“Any legal attempt to besmirch Mr. Curtis or Life of the Land for legitimately participating in the Public Utilities Commission process, however styled in legal claims founded on innuendo, has no purpose other than to harass Mr. Curtis or Life of the Land or to attempt to redirect attention away from the fact that purportedly author-impersonated public comments were submitted through Hu Honua’s website to the PUC and your client’s stated lack of any supervision over its collateral attempts to influence PUC decision making.”

The letter instructed Hu Honua to retain and preserve all relevant documents or physical evidence connected with the matter.

Hu Honua said in its filing Friday with the PUC that it used Google Analytics, Verizon Wireless, the publicly available website show myip.com, Google Maps, the White Pages and Intelius to pinpoint the location where the emails were emanating and that Curtis is associated with that street address.

“Hu Honua is gravely concerned about Mr. Curtis’s and, by association, LOL’s possible involvement in this deceptive form of sabotage,” Hu Honua President Warren Lee wrote in a letter contained in the filing. “We request that the PUC immediately confirm publicly, and provide its investigation findings, whether such conduct was carried out in order to negatively impact Hu Honua’s credibility and that of its public supporters, as well as to negatively influence the PUC’s determination on Hu Honua’s Motion for Reconsideration currently pending before the PUC.”

Collins said Hu Honua has no evidence Curtis or anyone connected to Life of the Land was in any way involved in the submission of the purportedly bogus emails.

“We attempted to replicate the steps Warren Lee claimed to have taken by looking up the IP address provided to obtain longitude and latitude data and the IP address pointed to Lanakila District Park,” Collins said. “The fact that the Lanakila District Park is in the same ZIP code as Mr. Curtis’s residence proves nothing and Hu Honua’s attempt to link Mr. Curtis to those e-mails is specious at best.”

Hu Honua’s plant in Pepeekeo is 99% completed and has cost $474 million. The company said approving the plant will mean more than 200 high-paying jobs, a new forestry industry and the expansion of local agriculture over the next 30 years.

It was Life of the Land’s appeal of the PUC’s 2017 ruling approving the Honua Ola project that led to the Hawaii Supreme Court returning the case to the PUC. The high court sided with Life of the Land that the PUC failed to “explicitly consider” the state’s goal of reducing greenhouse gases, which is required under state law.

The PUC reexamined the case and decided that long-term impacts of a 30-year contract would make the energy more expensive than other renewable-energy sources with similar operational characteristics. Hu Honua had agreed to an amended power-purchase agreement with Hawaii Electric Light Co., a Hawaiian Electric subsidiary, allowing the utility to buy energy that would be produced by burning trees harvested from along the Hamakua Coast.

Hu Honua said Life of the Land’s participation in the case should now be viewed with skepticism.

“To the extent that the Commission relied upon any statements or submissions by LOL in reaching its determination on any interim orders in this proceeding and its (order) which revoked the Commission’s previously granted waiver from (competitive bidding), Hu Honua respectfully submits that the Commission should reconsider its rulings should the investigation confirm Mr. Curtis’s and LOL’s involvement,” Lee wrote in the letter.

The letter said the Ililani Media website authored by Curtis “has consistently published misinformation about Hu Honua in connection with this reopened proceeding.”

Curtis, who has said the biomass plant would produce a lot of toxic chemicals and be costly for ratepayers, said it doesn’t surprise him that Hu Honua would accuse him of sabotage.

“I totally understand why they would do that because they are losing and would want to go on the attack,” Curtis said. “Hu Honua has repeatedly said we lack credentials.”

Collins said Hu Honua should direct its attention at itself.

“Life of the Land suggests that Hu Honua’s energies would be better spent attempting to resolve how purportedly author-impersonated public comments happened to be sent from Hu Honua’s own website as opposed to attempting to move public opinion against Life of the Land by unsupported innuendo,” Collins wrote. “Falsely maligning Life of the Land will not affect the Public Utilities Commission’s consideration of your client’s Motion for Reconsideration.”

Hu Honua expressed concern in its letter that Life of the Land has been given access to confidential information.

“Should the investigation confirm Mr. Curtis’s and LOL’s involvement, neither Hu Honua nor the PUC could possibly trust Mr. Curtis with Hu Honua’s confidential business information,” Lee said. “In addition, LOL’s access to Hu Honua’s confidential information should be revoked and LOL should be ordered to return or destroy such confidential information pursuant to the PUC’s protective order in this docket.”

The PUC said it is “gravely concerned” about the email matter because it impacts and risks violating the privacy of those who have had their email accounts used to file public comments they did not authorize, and calls into question the credibility and legality of thousands of other public comments filed in the docket.