Pirozzolo, Jack v. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (SPR 20260301)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 5, 2026 SPR26/0301 Gavin Tullis, Esq. Associate General Counsel Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Tullis: On January 29, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (Office) seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Office furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Jack W. Pirozzolo, Esq. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 14, 2026 and January 15, 2026, Attorney Pirozzolo requested: [1] All documents and communications related to the Massachusetts Public Records Request submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) on January 17, 2025 by [an identified individual], including but not limited to all documents and communications related to: a. DEP’s response to that request; b. DEP’s denial of that request; c. DEP’s production of records in response to that request; d. EEA’s involvement in the request; and e. EEA’s identification of [an identified individual] as an attorney for ExxonMobil. [2] All documents and communications related to the action Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Bonnie Heiple, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Civil Action No. 2584CV00863, Suffolk Sup. Ct. [3] All documents and communications related to the reporting of passenger vehicle emissions pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(7). 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

Gavin Tullis, Esq. SPR26/0301 Page 2 February 5, 2026 [4] All documents and communications related to the reporting of non-passenger vehicle emissions pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(8). [5] All documents and communications related to any petition to modify a passenger fleet emission limit issued by DEP pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(6)(c)(5), including, but not limited to, any explanatory materials submitted pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(6)(c)(3)–(5), and any documents and communications related to any DEP response to such a petition. [6] All documents and communication retained “to demonstrate compliance with 310 CMR 60.06,” pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(9)(b). [7] All documents and communications related to any DEP request for, or record of, any “inspection” pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(10). [8] All documents and communications related to any DEP request for information and records “necessary to ascertain compliance with 310 CMR § 60.06(10),” and all responses made thereto, pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(10)(a). [9] All documents and communications related to any “audits,” quantifications of emissions, “periodic reports,” and other records submitted to DEP by the EEA to “determine compliance” with 310 CMR § 60.06, pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(10)(b). [10] All documents and communications related to any citations or civil penalties issued by DEP for noncompliance with 310 CMR § 60.06, including pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(11). [11] To the extent not produced in response to any other request herein, all other documents and communications related to compliance or non-compliance with 310 CMR § 60.06. [12] All documents and communications related to [an identified individual’s] appointment as a Special Assistant Attorney General. [13] All incoming and outgoing communications with any media outlet, reporter, or news service, including, but not limited to, CommonwealthBeacon News, related to 310 CMR § 60.06. Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies A fee shall not assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) under a petition. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4).

Gavin Tullis, Esq. SPR26/0301 Page 3 February 5, 2026 In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my understanding that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Agencies An agency may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. Current Petition In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a) and the attorney-client privilege, the Office argued the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (b), (d), and (n): …EEA conducted a search for potentially responsive records based on this request and identified approximately 5,759 records potentially responsive to a

Gavin Tullis, Esq. SPR26/0301 Page 4 February 5, 2026 portion of the request, and estimated 10 hours to search for and segregate records potentially responsive to the remainder of the request… In addition to segregation and redaction being required by law, a portion of the records requested could potentially contain materials exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law, including but not limited to M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26 (a), (b), (d), or (n). For example, the records may include internal conversations among EEA staff relating to pending reporting, petitions, audits or other aspects of 310 CMR 60.06 (exemption d). They may also include links, passwords, or ID materials posing a cybersecurity threat to Commonwealth systems in which the public cannot reasonably be expected to have a legitimate interest (exemption b, n). Other exemptions may additionally apply to the potentially responsive records in light of the exceptionally broad nature of the request. EEA has an obligation to ensure that proper procedures are maintained to prevent the dissemination of information which is protected from disclosure by law. This requires careful review and segregation of records before they are produced to a requestor. Segregation and redaction of messages often involves the application of multiple exemptions to the public records law to a single message. Some information is simultaneously protected by more than one exemption or different exemptions depending on context or time of disclosure… Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the civil litigation, relating to records at issue in this appeal, is still active and ongoing in the Suffolk County Superior Court. See Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, et al., (Suffolk County Superior Court Docket No. 2584CV00863) (Nov. 14, 2025). In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b).

Gavin Tullis, Esq. SPR26/0301 Page 5 February 5, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jack W. Pirozzolo, Esq.