The defendants object to the inclusion in the Reply Brief of the plaintiff of references to matters which occurred subsequent to the decision of the DPUC from which appeal had been taken. These references are to reported profits of CNG in excess of its allowed return which the plaintiff argues is a clear indication of the inappropriateness of the grant of a rate increase in light of the changed economic conditions. The plaintiff bolsters this argument by appending to the brier "the notice of hearing and order to show cause" to CNG by DPUC dated July 18, 1990 "why its earned return on equity should not be reduced." These same references form the subject matter of the respective motions to present additional evidence and to allow an addition to the record, to which the defendants object.
G.S.
The plaintiff claims that G.S.
Likewise, although proof of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, not shown of the record, may be taken by the court, G.S. 183(f), subsequent economic factors which have an effect in increasing or deceasing profits under the new rates would not be irregularities in the procedure before the agency contemplated by G.S.
The parties have stipulated that if the court grants the motion to strike that it be granted only as to improper references on pgs. 1 and 12 and appendix "A" and not to the entire brief and that the plaintiff be permitted to submit a properly redacted brief.
The court therefore grants the motion to strike for reasons stated above but only as to the improper references and denies the motions to present additional evidence and to add to the record.
Corrigan, J.
