Electric Cooperatives of South Carolina

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
570308664
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Cayce, SC, USA
Phone
8037966060
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$24,380,709
Expenses
$13,165,959
Assets
$17,162,217
Liabilities
$1,502,818

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

49 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL COUICK (PRESIDENT &)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL COUICK (PRESIDENT &): $554,718 total reported compensation
  • CHRIS KOON (SR VP-GEN CO): $416,556 total reported compensation
  • JOHN FRICK (SR VP-PUBLIC): $413,182 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To assist members of the corporation in providing electric energy to consumers in the members' service areas.

What it reported doing in 2025

See schedule o ecsc is a not-for-profit corporation organized to: -foster, develop and encourage the program of rural electrification in the state of South Carolina -further the general welfare and to promote the interest of the members of ecsc; to further the safety, stability, security and prosperity of electric cooperatives; to aid in solving the problems common to electric cooperatives -disseminate information relating to the rural electrification program; to cooperate with federal, state and municipal agencies in the promotion of rural electrification and national, state, community and rural development; to provide services and informational programs that will stimulate local growth, stability and security and strengthen the electric cooperative program in South Carolina -otherwise assist the members of ecsc to provide electric energy to inhabitants of member service areas at the lowest possible cost consistent with sound economy -operate always for the benefit of its member cooperatives and through them for the benefit of their consumers, doing those things through ecsc that can be done better together than individually

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 6 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 46%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.3; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.4%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -32.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.4% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 42 of 42 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $555K · 49 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $414K reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.