Pirozzolo, Jack v. Department of Energy Resources (SPR 20260330)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 5, 2026 SPR26/0330 Rachel G. Evans, Esq. Records Access Officer Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 1020 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Evans: On January 29, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Department of Energy Resources (Department) seeking an extension of time to produce records and 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 Department 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 Attorney Pirozzolo requested: [1] All applications, forms, prospectuses, and any other filings or submissions prepared or transmitted by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (“DOER”) in support of, or in connection with, any requests for funding under the federal grant programs identified in the attached Schedule A. [2] To the extent not encompassed by Request No. 1, all applications, forms, prospectuses, and any other filings or submissions prepared or transmitted by DOER in support of, or in connection with, any of the federal grant awards identified in the attached Schedule B. Petitions for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; 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 G. Evans, Esq. SPR26/0330 Page 2 February 5, 2026 (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the Department requests an extension of 20 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: DOER 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… In view of the approximately 383 complex and multi-paged records potentially responsive to the Request, this is a significant undertaking…DOER would incur approximately 49 hours of staff time to respond to the Request… The proposed extension is warranted because the magnitude and complexity of the Request will require extensive staff time and unduly burden the other responsibilities of this office, such that responding to the Request within the statutory timeline is beyond the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency to produce the request without an extension. Based on the information provided in the Department’s petition, I find that in light of the need to collect, segregate, and examine the records and the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, in conjunction with the capacity of the Department to produce the request without the extension, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The Department is granted an extension of 20 business days.

Rachel G. Evans, Esq. SPR26/0330 Page 3 February 5, 2026 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). 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.

Rachel G. Evans, Esq. SPR26/0330 Page 4 February 5, 2026 Current Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a) and the attorney-client privilege, the Department argued the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (d), and (n): The potentially responsive records may contain material exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law, including without limitation the exemption at G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26 (a), (d) and (n). Some of the records sought were collected pursuant to DOER’s statutory authority under G.L. c. 25A, § 7 and therefore exempt pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26 (a). Other records related to the state energy security plan are confidential pursuant to 42 U.S. Code § 6326 and also fall under exemption (a). DOER believes that some information contained in the records, specifically “banking, tax, or utility account information” is protected from disclosure pursuant to G.L. c. 93H and therefore exemption (a). Additionally, information in the records related to pending applications may be policy-deliberative under exemption (d). Finally, some potentially responsive records contain confidential information related to critical energy infrastructure information (“CEII”) which is exempt pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(n). In light of the Department’s petition, I find the Department has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days as described above. Additionally, I find that to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. This office encourages Attorney Pirozzolo and the Department to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency shall suggest a reasonable modification to the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the Department must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Please note, Attorney Pirozzolo has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(c), 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c).

Rachel G. Evans, Esq. SPR26/0330 Page 5 February 5, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jack W. Pirozzolo, Esq.