Mary S. Booth v. Department of Energy Resources (SPR 20191470)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records August 7, 2019 SPR19/1470 Rachel Graham Evans, Esq. Deputy General Counsel Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 1020 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Evans: I have received the petition of Mary Booth of the Partnership for Policy Integrity appealing the response of the Department of Energy Resources (DOER) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1); Specifically, Ms. Booth requested "[a]ll emails, meeting notes, written memos, comment letters submitted by stakeholders, notes from meetings with stakeholders, scientific materials (including but not limited to published papers), and other materials pertaining to: 1. Decision to use 'I-year analysis' for lifecycle el'nissions in GHG calculator dated - 05-03-11, tab titled 'GHG analysis' (filename: 'ma-rps-guideline-overall-efficiency and-ghg-analysis-doer-050311.xlsx'). 2. Decision to make' I-year analysis' the regulatory requirement in the GHG calculator dated 04-27-12 (filename: 'overall-efficiency-and-ghg-analysis-guideline doer-042712.xlsx') 3. Decision to make' I-year analysis' the regulatory requirement in the GHG calculator used for the Alternative Portfolio Standard. 4. Decision to eliminate the requirement to provide data on 'Biomass Fuel Processing Stack Emissions' from GHG calculator for Alternative Portfolio Standard. This requirement occurs in the version of the GHG calculator used for the RPS, on the 'GHG Analysis' tab, but was eliminated from the APS calculator." DOER provided a written response on June 7, 2019 in which it included a fee estimate for the provision of categories 1 and 2 of the request. It should be noted that categories 1 and 2 described above were the subject of a previous appeal with this office (SPRl 9/1326 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 17, 2019)) as well as an appeal that is currently pending (SPR19/1534). This appeal (SPR19/1470) pertains to categories 3 and 4 of this request. One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre• pre@sec.state.ma.us

Rachel Graham Evans, Esq. SPR19/1470 Page 2 August 7, 2019 Appeal In its June ih response DOER indicated it needed additional time to process categories 3 and 4 of the request. On July 3th DOER provided six records responsive to categories 3 and 4 with portions redacted under the attorney-client privilege, work product, and/or common-interest doctrines. In her appeal petition dated July 24, 2019 Ms. Booth indicates, in part, "DOER responded to parts 3&4 on July 8. DOER sent me four pdfs that were completely unresponsive to the issue I had asked about. My request was for emails, memos, etc. They did not include any of those." She also notes "I am requesting that your office facilitate DOER becoming more responsive to my actual request for parts 3&4." Subsequent to the filing of this appeal DOER provided a supplemental response on August 6th. In this response you asse1i " ... DOER searched all records in its custody or control." ( emphasis in original). You further note "[i]n preparing a response to Questions 3&4 below, DOER's search included all forms of records that you identified, including but not limited to: 'All emails, meeting notes, ·written memos, comment letters submitted by stakeholders, notes fi·om meetings with stakeholders, scientific materials (including but not limited to published papers), and other mqterials. 'DOER has not withheld any records. DOER's response to you on July 8, 2019 was complete and in accordance with the public records law." ( emphasis in original). Whereas DOER's August 6th supplemental response provides information regarding the existence of additional records responsive to categories 3 and 4 of the request, I will consider this appeal closed. Ms. Booth may appeal the substantive nature of DOER's response within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). It should be noted that the duty to comply with requests for records · extends only to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian ofrecords at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(a)(ii), (b)(ii). Sincerely, ~a~ Supervisor of Records cc: Mary Booth