Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621, 629 (Tex.2008) (”[0]ur standard is to construe statutes to effectuate the intent of the Legislature, with the language of the statute as it was enacted to be our guide unless the context or an absurd result requires another construction.”). 54 . 336 S.W.3d at 625-28. 55 . See id. at 628-30. 56 . See Zimmer, 368 S.W.3d at 586. 57 . Fisher Controls, 45 S.W.3d at 302. 58 . Texas Citizens, 336 S.W.3d at 625; see also Texas Coast Utils. Coal., 423 S.W.3d at 356 n. 16 (noting that principles of deference to agency construction not implicated where statute at issue is unambiguous). 59 . TGS-NOPEC, 340 S.W.3d at 438. 60 . See, e.g., Blue Cross Blue Shield v. Duenez, 201 S.W.3d 674, 676-77 (Tex.2006) (per curiam). 61 . See Texas Citizens, 336 S.W.3d at 624-33 (<HOLDING>); AEP Tex. Commercial & Indus. Retail Ltd.
holding that an agencys determination on a workers compensation claim was entitled to deference holding that we show  deference to an agencys conclusions in the area of its expertise holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference holding that an agencys informal interpretation of a statute it administers is entitled to deference to the extent it has the power to persuade holding that agencys construction of statute it was charged with enforcing was entitled to deference because it was reasonable in line with the statutes meaning and related to its expertise