Pirozzolo, Jack v. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (SPR 20260302)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 5, 2026 SPR26/0302 Bruce Hopper, Esq. Litigation Manager Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Hopper: On January 29, 2026 this office received your petition on behalf of the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) 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, I understand that the Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Attorney Jack W. Pirozzolo, of Sidley Austin LLC. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 14, 2026, Attorney Pirozzolo requested the following, including numerous Exhibits with his request: 1) All documents and communications related to the public records request submitted by Jack W. Pirozzolo on or around January 17, 2025 (the “Previous Request,” attached hereto as Exhibit A). 2) To the extent not already produced in response to the Previous Request in your productions of April 17, 2025 and October 27, 2025, all documents and communications related to: a) All reports submitted by any Executive Office to MassDEP detailing passenger vehicle emissions pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(7).2 b) All petitions submitted by any Executive Office to MassDEP requesting a modification of a passenger fleet emission limit pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(6)(c)(2), including, but not limited to, any explanatory materials submitted pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(6)(c)(3)–(5). c) All communications with any Executive Office related to MassDEP’s responses to petitions requesting modification of a passenger fleet emission limit issued by MassDEP pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(6)(c)(5), including, but not limited to, requests for additional information and responses thereto, approvals, and denials. d) All reports published by MassDEP concerning the metric tons of CO2 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

Bruce Hopper, Esq. SPR26/0302 Page 2 February 5, 2026 emissions remaining in the set-aside for all applicable calendar years, as required by 310 CMR § 60.06(c)(5)(b) (“If the petition is approved, the Department will calculate the metric tons of CO2 emissions remaining in the set-aside for the applicable calendar year and publish that figure on its website.”). e) All reports submitted by any Executive Office to MassDEP detailing nonpassenger vehicle emissions pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(8). f) The following records pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(10): 1. All requests to Executive Offices for, and any record of, any “inspection” pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(10); 2. All requests to Executive Offices for information and records “necessary to ascertain compliance with 310 CMR § 60.06,” and all responses thereto, pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(10)(a); and 3. All “audits,” quantifications of emissions, “periodic reports,” and other records submitted to MassDEP to “determine compliance” with 310 CMR § 60.06, pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(10)(b). g) All citations and civil penalties issued by MassDEP for noncompliance with 310 CMR § 60.06, including pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(11). 3) To the extent not already produced in response to the Previous Request in your productions of April 17, 2025 and October 27, 2025, all documents and communications related to any Executive Office’s compliance or noncompliance with 310 CMR § 60.06. 4) To the extent not already produced in response to the Previous Request in your productions of April 17, 2025 and October 27, 2025, all documents and communications related to MassDEP’s compliance or noncompliance with 310 CMR § 60.06. 5) To the extent not already produced in response to the Previous Request in your productions of April 17, 2025 and October 27, 2025, all documents and communications relating to a meeting held on February 3, 2025 between [named individuals], see Exhibit B, including, but not limited to, any agendas, minutes, and invitations. 6) To the extent not already produced in response to the Previous Request in your productions of April 17, 2025 and October 27, 2025, all documents and communications relating to the Teams conversation regarding the Previous Request and Pirozzolo as reflected in Exhibit C, including, but not limited to, any related messages not depicted in the Exhibit C screenshot. 7) To the extent not already produced in response to the Previous Request in your productions of April 17, 2025 and October 27, 2025, all documents and communications related to any communication that was both (i) related to 310 CMR § 60.06 and (ii) sent from any Executive Office to MassDEP employee Ngoc Hoang. See Exhibit D (MassDEP email instructing Executive Offices to email 310 CMR § 60.06 documents to Hoang). 8) To the extent not already produced in response to the Previous Request in your productions of April 17, 2025 and October 27, 2025, all documents and communications related to any meeting between MassDEP, the Massachusetts

Bruce Hopper, Esq. SPR26/0302 Page 3 February 5, 2026 Bay Transit Authority, and/or the Massachusetts Department of Transportation regarding 310 CMR § 60.06. See Exhibit E (email chain regarding scheduling such a meeting). 9) To the extent not already produced in response to the Previous Request in your productions of April 17, 2025 and October 27, 2025, all documents and communications relating to both (i) the Previous Request and (ii) the Massachusetts’ Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (“EEA”), including, but not limited to, all communications with EEA regarding the Previous Request. See, e.g., Exhibit B. 10) To the extent not already produced in response to the Previous Request in your productions of April 17, 2025 and October 27, 2025, all documents and communications related to [a named individual]’s appointment as a Special Assistant Attorney General. 11) All documents related to enforcement policies, procedures, and protocols at MassDEP. 12) All documents related to any civil actions, adjudicative hearings, or other enforcement proceedings brought pursuant to 310 CMR § 7.72, 310 CMR § 7.73, 310 CMR § 7.74, and/or 310 CMR § 7.75. 13) All incoming and outgoing communications with any media outlet, reporter, or news service, including, but not limited to, Commonwealth Beacon News, related to 310 CMR § 60.06. Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies A fee shall not be 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 under G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). 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 an agency’s petition to allow the agency to charge for time spent segregating or redacting 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 determination 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 agency 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; 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.

Bruce Hopper, Esq. SPR26/0302 Page 4 February 5, 2026 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, the Department seeks to assess fees “for segregation and redaction costs,” and in support of its request, the Department states the following: Our preliminary search found approximately 7,887 pages of potentially responsive items (some may be duplicates). We anticipate that many of the potentially responsive records, some of which directly relate to an ongoing lawsuit involving Mr. Pirozzolo’s January 17, 2025 Public Records Request to MassDEP and in which DEP is represented by outside counsel (Mintz Levin), will contain privileged materials and materials that are exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law’s deliberative process exemption and possibly other exemptions. Given the potential volume of material that must be reviewed and potentially segregated or redacted, in accordance with M.G.L. c. 66, § 10(b) and 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2), we have determined that a fee is necessary to process this production. The overall fee estimate is $11,683.75. Of that total, we seek permission to charge $9,858.75 for 394.35 hours of segregation and redaction time, at a rate of $25 per hour. Again, this is only a good faith estimate, and upon actually completing a search we may find even more pages of potentially responsive material or it may take longer to segregate and redact material than we currently anticipate. We have also communicated our fee estimate to the requestor separately. This is a voluminous request. The estimate for segregation and redaction time alone is equivalent to one FTE working on this part of the request for 52 days.

Bruce Hopper, Esq. SPR26/0302 Page 5 February 5, 2026 This does not include the amount of time it will take staff to search for responsive records. Of note, this was only one of three requests that MassDEP received from Mr. Jack W. Pirozzolo in a two-day period, and Mr. Pirozzolo previously submitted another request to MassDEP in 2025. The fee estimate provided is for the segregation and redaction process as a whole and cannot be split up by exemption. Segregation and redaction of records often involves the application of multiple exemptions to the public records law to a single record. Some information is simultaneously protected by more than one exemption or different exemptions depending on context or the time of disclosure. Also, we cannot find this information simply by performing an electronic search, but rather each record must be carefully reviewed, analyzed, and redacted, if necessary, line by line. Although we do not know the exact number because we have not yet performed the full search, we estimate that a review of 7,887 pages (at a minimum, because additional records responsive to the request may be identified) will be required to respond to the full request. Our good faith estimate is for the segregation and redaction process as a whole. See M.G.L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii) (permitting “reasonable fees” to “search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record(s) requested.”). It contemplates that each page will require an average of 3 minutes to review and redact. 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).

Bruce Hopper, Esq. SPR26/0302 Page 6 February 5, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jack W. Pirozzolo, Esq.