Eiseman, Katy v. Westfield, City of - Gas and Electric Department (SPR 20260628)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 9, 2026 SPR26/0628 Robin Krok HR Coordinator/Records Management City of Westfield Gas and Electric Light Department 40 Turnpike Industrial Road, P. O. Box 990 Westfield, MA 021086 Dear Ms. Krok: I have received the petition of Katy Eiseman appealing the response of the City of Westfield (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 17, 2025, Ms. Eiseman requested “a copy of the power purchasing agreement (PPA) entered into by Westfield Gas & Electric and the data-center developer, which I believe is called Servistar Realties, in relation to the proposed data center in town.” On November 19, 2025, Ms. Eiseman made an additional request “concerning the proposed data center” for the following records: [1] [A]ny agreement (including any host community agreement or community benefit agreement) entered into with the data center developer or its agents by any department, board, or other subdivision of the City of Westfield; [2] [A]ny draft or proposal of such an agreement; [3] [A]ny permit application (and related schematics, maps, diagrams, or other attachments) and any permit issued by any subdivision of the City of Westfield in connection with this proposed data facility. The City responded on November 20, 2025, November 26, 2025, and February 19, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Ms. Eiseman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0628, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public 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

Robin Krok SPR26/0628 Page 2 March 9, 2026 records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The City’s November 20th, November 26th, and February 19th Responses In its November 20, 2025 response, the City stated: Westfield Gas + Electric light has not issued any permits related to any data center, proposed by Service Star or any other entity. Westfield Gas + Electric has not entered into any host community agreement or community benefit agreement with regard to any data center, developer, or their agents. Westfield Gas + Electric is an independent division of the City of Westfield and does not have involvement with other City offices that may have issued any such permits or executed such community agreements. You will need to direct this question to other City of Westfield offices. Westfield Gas + Electric did not receive any permit application for a data center. With regard to the remainder of this information request, it is under review, and we will respond within the allowed time… In its November 26, 2025 response, the City cited Exemption (g) of the Public Records Law to deny providing: [1] A copy of the power purchase agreement (“PPA”) between Westfield Gas & Electric Light Department (“WG+E”) and the data-center developer you identified as Servistar Realties; and [2] Any draft or proposal of such an agreement. On February 9, 2026, Ms. Eiseman sought the following from the City: I saw a press report from 2024 mentioning that this PPA exists, and in the past other MLPs have provided me copies (both redacted and unredacted) of PPAs, including for a facility that had not been built but that the developer was actively pursuing... I am no longer seeking drafts, but would still like a copy of the

Robin Krok SPR26/0628 Page 3 March 9, 2026 executed agreement (with whatever redactions are legally necessary from a confidentiality standpoint). Additionally – apart from the public records request, could you provide me any information on the status of this project? A December 2025 news article suggests that it may have been abandoned. In its February 19, 2026 response, the City confirmed receipt of Ms. Eiseman’s follow-up inquiry and stated that it “will have a response to you within 10 business days[.]” Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Eiseman stated: While [the City] intends to respond… to my follow-up email of February 9, 2026, I understand that today is coincidentally the last day for me to appeal my original PRR per 950 CMR 32.08 (1)… I believe that the Massachusetts Public Records Law affords me the right to review the power purchasing agreement (the “Agreement”) entered into between WG&E and the data center developer (Servistar Realties), even if WG&E can only provide the Agreement in redacted form at the present… It appears that Ms. Eiseman’s appeal pertains only to “the power purchasing agreement (the ‘Agreement’) entered into between WG&E and the data center developer (Servistar Realties),” which the City denied providing under Exemption (g). Exemption (g) Exemption (g) applies to: Trade secrets or commercial or financial information voluntarily provided to an agency for use in developing governmental policy and upon a promise of confidentiality; but this subparagraph shall not apply to information submitted as required by law or as a condition of receiving a governmental contract or other benefit G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(g). For this exemption to apply in order to withhold a record, a custodian must meet all of the following six (6) criteria contained in the exemption: (1) Trade secrets or commercial or financial information, (2) Voluntarily provided to a government entity, (3) For use in developing government policy, (4) Upon an assurance of confidentiality, (5) Information not submitted as required by law, and

Robin Krok SPR26/0628 Page 4 March 9, 2026 (6) Information not submitted as a condition of receiving a governmental contract or benefit. In its November 26, 2025 response, under Exemption (g), the City stated: The requested documents are exempt from disclosure under Exemption (g)… Any drafts, proposals, or negotiation materials, contain proprietary commercial and financial information provided by a private developer in the context of ongoing sensitive contract negotiations. Disclosure of these materials could reveal competitively significant details regarding pricing, load forecasts, operational commitments, infrastructure planning, and other business terms that are both confidential and commercially valuable. Further, the release of such information would harm WG+E’s ability to negotiate future contracts and could expose the private developer’s competitively sensitive data. For these reasons, the materials fall squarely within Exemption (g) and cannot be disclosed. Drafts of the documents are subject to confidentiality requirements as between the developer and WG+E, and any final contract agreement must remain confidential until formally filed as a Tariff Rate with the Department of Public Utilities… Pursuant to the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). Further, any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Based on the City’s responses, it is unclear how the responsive agreement may be withheld in its entirety under Exemption (g). Although the City states that the responsive document “contain[s] proprietary commercial and financial information provided by a private developer in the context of ongoing sensitive contract negotiations,” the City has not demonstrated how the withheld record would meet all six of the criteria contained in Exemption (g). The City must clarify this. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Eiseman with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms.

Robin Krok SPR26/0628 Page 5 March 9, 2026 Eiseman may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Katy Eiseman