in them precludes the Commission from ascertaining and considering fair value in setting rates, and the Rules are otherwise consistent with the Commission’s constitutional mandate to ascertain fair value. The Cooperatives and the Council counter that the Rules are facially unconstitutional because they make no provision for finding fair value and R14-2-1611(A) is inconsistent with the constitutional requirement to determine and consider this factor in setting rates. ¶46 The Rules are unconstitutional on their face if they cannot be applied under any circumstances without violating Article 15, Sections 3 and 14. Reno, 507 U.S. at 301, 113 S.Ct. 1439. Otherwise, their eonstitu- tionality can only be attacked as applied in particular circumstances. Williams v. 29 P.2d 668, 670 (1942) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Rules empower the Commission to
holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them holding right to testify was federal constitutional right holding that a statute is unconstitutional if it clearly contravenes a constitutional provision holding constitutional provision selfexecuting if it grants right that can be put into operation without further legislative action holding that the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel does not extend to parental termination proceedings without identifying any specific constitutional provision