VELCO and the Public Service Department argue, in response, that this Court generally defers to the Board’s interpretation of an enabling statute -within its particular expertise, and that Shelburne has identified no “compelling indication of error” in the Board’s approach. In re Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Station, 2003 VT 53, ¶ 5, 175 Vt. 368, 829 A.2d 1284. Although the issue is well framed and significant, we find that there is no need to address it here. While Shelburne takes issue with the Board’s narrow definition of “land conservation measures,” it does not argue that it was prejudiced by the Board’s interpretation, or explain how, if at all, a broader approach would have changed the result. See Mellin v. Flood Brook Union Sch. Dist., 173 Vt. 202, 216, 790 A.2d 408, 421 (2001) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 27. We note, furthermore, that despite its
holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling based only on affidavits holding that we will not overturn a denial of a rule 59 motion absent an abuse of discretion holding that if the trial court acts under a misconception of the applicable law we need not defer to its ruling holding that we need not overturn trial court ruling where it did not harm the plaintiff and its resolution would not alter the outcome holding that we will overturn the factual findings of the district court only where we have a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed