Cahill, Kevin v. Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (SPR 20140014)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords April29, 2014 SPR14/014 Mr. Kevin K. Cahill 99 Middlefield Road Peru, MA 01235 Dear Mr. Cahill: This office has received your petition appealing the response of Stephen L. Pike, General Counsel for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (CEC), to your request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(6). Specifically, you requested a copy of a feasibility study conducted by Lightship Energy (Lightship) with respect to the proposed Gamet Hill Wind Farm project. In response to your request, CEC provided you with a redacted copy of the responsive record. CEC has withheld responsive information from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Exemption (a) Exemption (a) allows for the withholding of records which are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a) A governmental entity may use Exemption (a) as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute suggests that the public's right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. Attorney General v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 154 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). In his response, General Counsel Pike stated that information was withheld from the responsive record pursuant to G.L. c. 23J, § 2(k) as it operates under Exemption (a). Section 2(k) states: Any documentary materials or data whatsoever made or received by a member or OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/ pre

Mr. Kevin K. Cahill SPR14/014 Page Two April29, 2014 employee of the center and consisting of, or to the extent that such materials or data consist of, trade secrets or commercial or financial information regarding the operation of any business conducted by an applicant for any form of assistance which the center is empowered to render or regarding the competitive position of such applicant in a particular field of endeavor, shall not be deemed public records of the center and shall not be subject to section 10 of chapter 66." In a March 25, 2014 telephone conversation with an attorney on my staff, General Counsel Pike stated that financial information was provided by Lightship as part of the cost and revenue estimates included within the responsive record. According to General Counsel Pike, Lightship received grant funding from CEC for delivery of the feasibility study. Subsequently, Lightship applied for project funding from CEC with respect to the Garnet Hill proposal. It is my finding that CEC may permissibly withhold financial information provided by Lightship pursuant to Exemption (a). You have petitioned this office for disclosure of the redacted inforn1ation stating that Lightship was not an applicant for assistance but simply a "grantee." It is my understanding that Lightship applied for financial assistance, in the form of grant funds, in order to conduct the feasibility study. Furthern1ore, Lightship has applied for additional assistance with respect to funding of the proposed project. These circumstances enable the applicability of Section 2(k) and permit CEC to withhold responsive financial information. CEC has also redacted information specific to a noise assessment from the responsive record. General Counsel Pike has inforn1ed this office that CEC will provide this information to you. Whereas CEC may permissibly withhold responsive financial information, this administrative appeal is now closed. Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Stephen L. Pike, Esq.