Why, oh why, do some officials at the Public Utilities Commission believe it’s their sacred obligation to prevent residents of metro Denver from hiring the sort of transportation they desire?

Why do they believe their first duty is to protect the local taxi oligopoly from any hint of competition — even from luxury limo drivers who aren’t allowed to park at hotels or other public venues, as taxis can, and who charge more than taxis for the same distance?

What perverse understanding of their jobs drives these regulators to put the interest of incumbent transportation companies above that of consumers?

The latest example? Administrative law judge Harris Adams’ apparent plan to bar luxury limousine providers — and let’s be clear; the true concern is a single company named Uber — from charging for rides based upon a combination of time and distance.

I say “apparent” because Adams’ recent revision of proposed rules governing limo service are written in the sort of dense and tangled prose one associates with the old Politburo. His meaning at times can only be surmised.

Uber is a successful startup from San Francisco that contracts with licensed limo drivers in cities around the world to provide on-demand luxury car service at the click of a smartphone app. And the transactions involve neither cash nor credit card — or tip. Yet from the moment Uber entered the Denver market last fall, taxi companies mobilized to hobble it, and certain PUC officials fell all over themselves to carry industry water.

In January, for example, PUC staff proposed a set of new rules that would have simply outlawed Uber’s operations by forcing the company into the same regulatory category as taxi firms — and never mind that it had 10,000 clients by then. Those proposals then went to Adams, who to his credit recognized they were too harsh.

But maybe Adams merely objected to the crude and transparent way in which staff proposed to outlaw Uber. While his revisions are less clumsy, they remain ominous for Uber and for consumer choice.

Adams essentially would ban the basis on which Uber drivers charge for rides, a GPS-driven mixture of time and distance that adjusts for route changes and delays. Henceforth, Adams would decree, “A luxury limousine may not contain a taxicab meter or other device for calculating any component of rates charged based upon time and mileage, other than a clock.” What does this mean? Can the PUC — which does not regulate limo prices — actually relegate limo providers to a 19th century technology?

Would a limo driver be permitted to use his “clock,” odometer and perhaps an abacus to calculate a time-and-distance bill? Reading Harris’ proposals, which are sprinkled with double negatives and vague phrases, you eventually conclude that he wants to limit limo drivers to charging based upon blocks of time — by the hour, for example, which is a traditional practice — set before the ride begins and rarely subject to change.

Why? The Uber app undeniably allows consumers to access luxury limos with a convenience and speed (sometimes within minutes) that didn’t exist before. And while it’s understandable taxi companies would complain, why should the PUC act as their shield?

If taxi lobbyists find it intolerable that metro residents are now accessing luxury limo rides with unprecendented ease, then they should go to state lawmakers and try to talk them into outlawing such consumer choice. But the PUC should stay out of it.

Indeed, regulators should welcome innovation and evidence of satisfied consumers.

The ultimate authority at the PUC are its three appointed commissioners. Let us hope that they, at least, prove more interested in progress than protection.

E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com.