240 F.3d 944, 953 (11th Cir.2001). ¶47 As previously explained, see supra ¶¶ 27-39, R14-2-1611(A) is unconstitutional on its face as it prevents the Commission from fulfilling the duties mandated by Article 15, Sections 3 and 14. The remaining Rules, however, can be applied in a manner consistent with the constitution. Although no rule specifically requires the Commission to determine and consider fair value, that omission does not invalidate the Rules in their entirety, as the superior court ruled. Article 15, Section 14 is self-executing as it affirmatively requires the Commission to determine fair value in setting rates, and a rule is therefore not needed to impose this requirement. See Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 157 Ariz. 532, 536, 760 P.2d 532, 536 (1988) (<HOLDING>); see also Miller v. Wilson, 59 Ariz. 403, 408,
holding that limitations period in section 13  214a of the code applies over limitations period for contribution actions found in section 13  204 of the code because former provision is more specific holding that uipa does not give commission exclusive power to adjudicate deceptive act claims holding that a commission is a body with special and limited power and it can only exercise the power expressly or impliedly granted to it and any reasonable doubt of existence of any power must be resolved against the exercise thereof holding article 15 section 13 selfexecuting because further legislation unnecessary to give commission power specifically granted by this provision holding that refusal to proceed to trial by arbitrarily abating case violates article i section 13 of the texas constitution