Pirozzolo, Jack v. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (SPR 20260521)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 20, 2026 SPR26/0521 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 February 12, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (Office) seeking an extension of time to produce responsive records and relief from the obligation to produce 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. 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. SPR26/0521 Page 2 February 20, 2026 [3] All documents and communications related to the reporting of passenger vehicle emissions pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(7). [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.

Gavin Tullis, Esq. SPR26/0521 Page 3 February 20, 2026 Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous petition from the Office. See SPR26/0301 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 5, 2026). In my February 5th determination, I declined to opine on the Office’s petition seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records based on pending litigation related to the responsive records. It is my understanding that a reconsideration of my determination in SPR26/0301 is currently pending. 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; (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 Office requests an extension of time to produce the responsive records and provides the following information in support of its request:

Gavin Tullis, Esq. SPR26/0521 Page 4 February 20, 2026 As detailed in our good faith fee letter and petition in SPR26/0301, EEA estimates that responding to the request will require 299.95 hours of staff time to retrieve, review, redact and produce the responsive records. This estimate represents an actual and good faith representation and is necessary, reasonable, and is not designed to limit, deter, or prevent access to requested public records. In light of the estimated time required to respond to the request, and pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10(c) and 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(e), EEA seeks an extension of time to respond to the request, after receipt of the required fee… An 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. This 13-part request is one of three requests received contemporaneously from Mr. Pirozzolo and is the latest in a hail of public records requests made to EEA, and other Commonwealth entities, during the past year for commercial purposes and not for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity. As indicated in our fee estimate in SPR26/0301, an employee working full time would require approximately 8 weeks to complete review of the potentially responsive records, during which time they would be unavailable to perform their other pressing governmental duties. This request is “extensive and extremely burdensome.” Friedman v. Div. Admin. Law Appeals, supra, at 817; see also id. at 807. At a reasonable rate of 4 hours per week to work to respond to the request, EEA will require 75 weeks, or 375 days, to complete review. In light of these factors, pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10(c) and 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(f), we request that the Supervisor grant a reasonable extension of time, allowing EEA to produce records in batches every 30 business days until all records have been produced; or, in the alternative, relieve EEA of its obligation to respond to the request. See Friedman, supra, at 817 n.16 (“We do not rule out [] that a request could simply be too burdensome to meet the ‘reasonably describes’ requirement. Some Federal cases have so held.”); American Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, Local 2782 v. United States Dep’t of Commerce, 907 F.2d 203, 209 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (“An agency need not honor a request that requires ‘an unreasonably burdensome search’”). In the alternative, we seek an extension of 20 business days after receipt of the fee, with leave to file additional requests for extension of time. Based on the information provided in the Office’s petition, I find that in light of the capacity of the Office to produce the request without the extension, and the efforts undertaken by the Office in fulfilling the current request and previous requests, the Office has established good

Gavin Tullis, Esq. SPR26/0521 Page 5 February 20, 2026 cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The Office is granted an extension of 20 business days. Request for Relief In its petition, the Office alternatively seeks relief from the obligation to provide records, stating, “[i]n light of these factors, pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10(c) and 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(f), we request that the Supervisor … in the alternative, relieve EEA of its obligation to respond to the request.” The Office additionally alleges that the request is made for a commercial purpose, stating: This 13-part request is one of three requests received contemporaneously from Mr. Pirozzolo and is the latest in a hail of public records requests made to EEA, and other Commonwealth entities, during the past year for commercial purposes and not for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity. Please be advised that the term “commercial purpose” as used in the Public Records Law shall mean: the sale or resale of any portion of the public record or the use of information from the public record to advance the requester’s strategic business interests in a manner that the requester can reasonably expect to make a profit, and shall not include gathering or reporting news or gathering information to promote citizen oversight or further the understanding of the operation or activities of government or for academic, scientific, journalistic or public research or education. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ix). Based on the information provided in the Office’s petition, I find that the Office has not demonstrated that the requests are frivolous and not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, as required by G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Additionally, the Office has not demonstrated that the requests are for a commercial purpose. Consequently, relief from the obligation to provide responsive records cannot be granted. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Office has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days as described above. However, as noted above, I am unable to grant the Office’s request for relief from the obligation to produce responsive records. This office encourages Attorney Pirozzolo and the Office 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 of the scope of the request or offer

Gavin Tullis, Esq. SPR26/0521 Page 6 February 20, 2026 to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the Office 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). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jack W. Pirozzolo, Esq.