Bertrand, Michelle v. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (SPR 20261094)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 27, 2206 SPR26/1094 Katrina Chicojay Moore, Esq. Associate General Counsel Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Chicojay Moore: On March 25, 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, Michelle Bertrand. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 11, 2026, Ms. Bertrand requested the following: Between January 1, 2022 and to date (February 23, 2026) copies of all written communications: (letters, notices, emails), between and/or cc’d or bcc’d to any/all personnel of the EOEA's Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) Office and any/all personnel/representatives of[:] [1] Moraga Storage, LLC[;] [2] Rhynland Energy, LLC[;] [3] Segue Renewables 1, LLC[;] [4] SR1 Rhynland HoldCo 1, LLC[;] [5] Zovl Properties, LLC[;] [6] BHT Oakham, LCC[;] [7] Epsilon Associates, Inc.[;] [8] Any consultants and/or subcontractors employed by any of the above entities[.] 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 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

Katrina Chicojay Moore, Esq. SPR26/1094 Page 2 March 27, 2026 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. 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 Office requests “. . . approval to assess a fee for costs associated with responding to a public records request . . . .” In support of its petition, the Office provides the following information: A large portion of the records requested could potentially contain materials

Katrina Chicojay Moore, Esq. SPR26/1094 Page 3 March 27, 2026 exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law, including but not limited to M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26 (a), (c), (d), (n), and (s). The records may include communications exempted from disclosure by statute (exemption (a)) or records that possess a deliberative or policymaking character and relate to an ongoing deliberative process that is not “reasonably complete” (exemption (d)). They may also include communications related to security or safety of persons or buildings, the disclosure of which may give way to a cyber security risk (exemption (n)). This may be particularly true where the requestor is seeking information on energy projects, which may play critical roles in the stability of the electric grid and may be sensitive sites. Next, emails may include personnel or other personal identifying information that must be withheld under exemption (c). Finally, the potentially responsive records may include those related to trade secrets or confidential, competitively-sensitive or other proprietary information provided in the course of activities conducted by a governmental body as an energy supplier, municipal aggregator, or cooperative (exemption (s)). Where the requestor seeks all communications by multiple entities related to energy production, such exempt material may be included. Based on the information provided in its fee petition, I find the Office has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without segregation or redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Office has met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without redaction or segregation. To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Office may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Ms. Bertrand is advised that she may appeal the Office’s fee estimate within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note, Ms. Bertrand 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: Michelle Bertrand