Opinion ID: 4538714
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Manufacturer Guarantee

Text: Petitioners fault the Presiding Officer's finding that [t]he Solar turbine specified for the proposed Project has a guaranteed emission rate for NOx of 9 ppm, given that the technical proposal from Solar Turbines contains no guarantee of emissions rate. Therefore, petitioners reason, the Presiding Officer's finding was not supported by substantial evidence, or DEP's decision based on that finding was otherwise arbitrary and capricious. Algonquin contends that the record does otherwise contain evidence of a guaranteed emissions rate from Solar. But even assuming it does not, we see no merit in petitioners' argument. Petitioners point us to nothing in Massachusetts law suggesting that a guarantee from the equipment manufacturer is required for approval of Algonquin's air permit. And, more importantly, if the SoLoNOx turbine does not work as claimed in the permit, that will be Algonquin's problem, not petitioners' or even DEP's. Simply put, Algonquin could be fined and ordered to reduce operations to eliminate any violation of its permitted limits. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 111, § 142B. Whether or not Solar could be liable to Algonquin for such a violation affects only the allocation of costs as between those parties. See Catlin v. Bd. - 50 - of Registration of Architects, 604 N.E.2d 1301, 1305 (Mass. 1992) (The appealing party has the burden of showing that his 'substantial rights . . . may have been prejudiced' by the agency's error. (quoting Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30A, § 14(7))); see also Sasen v. Spencer, 879 F.3d 354, 366 (1st Cir. 2018).