Defendants appeal by right both decisions of the Court of Claims. The cases were ordered to be submitted together. Defendants argue that the Court of Claims failed to show adequate deference to the interpretation given the statute by the administrative body chosen by the Legislature to administer it. It is true that in legislation governing public utilities, an administrative regulator is vested with a wide range of discretion. Moreover, although we are mindful that a reviewing court should give due deference to the PSC's administrative expertise and may not substitute its judgment for that of the PSC, this does not mean that a reviewing court should abandon altogether its responsibility to interpret legislative intent.
Statutory interpretation is a question of law for the courts.
A clear and unambiguous statute leaves no room for construction or interpretation. If, however, interpretation is necessary, then a reviewing court must determine the Legislature's intent. Such services are interstate operations, not intrastate operations. We recognize that defendants' interpretation of the statute has the virtue of ease of administration and calculation. However, convenience cannot override clear statutory language.