![[DEV] SC Policy Council](https://assets.nationbuilder.com/themes/64a70761f9279500cd767ee8/attachments/original/1680182376/logo-nerve.jpeg?1680182376){kind=logo}
By RICK BRUNDRETT
Editor’s Note: This story is part of a two-article package published today. The other story can be found here.
The video component for both stories can be found here.
David Crawford will tell you he’s been an Edisto Island musician for 43 years, noting that’s how he met his wife.
For the past 10 years, he’s also been the owner of Edisto Island Shuttle, a company with two other drivers who provide scheduled, flat-fee rides for island and other Colleton County residents.
“You’ve either been in my audience or in my car,” Crawford jokes.
But in recent interviews with The Nerve, Crawford worries that his business – and likely other rural transportation companies statewide – couldn’t survive financially if classified by the state as “Class C” carriers, which include taxis and charter limousines, contending the certification comes with more regulatory red tape and higher insurance costs.
Crawford said he voluntarily relinquished his state charter certificate for his business last year, mainly because he couldn’t afford the nearly $700 monthly insurance premiums for the minimum required level of coverage for his van. He said he found only one insurance company in the state that offered the line of insurance coverage for his Class C charter certificate.
“I tried to play ball (with state regulators) … but I couldn’t,” said Crawford, whose business is registered by the state as a limited liability company. S.C. Secretary of State records show that he obtained the LLC designation in May 2024 and list the company in “good standing” with the state.
Crawford hopes a state House bill reintroduced this year can give his business and other similar rural transportation companies statewide some regulatory relief.
The local need for his service is great, he said.
“I’ve got an island full of people who need transportation – doctor appointments and all other kinds of things, Crawford said, noting he primarily makes runs to Charleston International Airport. “Right now, I’ve got an auto part in my car that I’m taking back to the island, and that’s because he (his client) can’t get off the island.”
“I easily have over 500 people – just my regular clientele and not including the person I went and got the auto part for today,” he added.
“We do it all,” Crawford explained. “We have to do it all because there’s no one there to fill the gap. And that gap needs to be filled, not only in Colleton County, but across America.”
This year’s estimated population of Colleton County is 39,150, according to the S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office. In comparison, Greenville County – the state’s largest county – has a 2025 projected population of 572,901.
The population of Edisto Island – a popular summer destination split between Colleton and Charleston counties and which includes the incorporated town of Edisto Beach on the Colleton County side – was 1,884 in 2020, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, though other online sources put the current figure in the 2,400-2,600 range.
‘Cut-and-dry’ issue
Crawford said he supports a House bill introduced this year by Rep. Leon Stavrinakis, D-Charleston, which would allow his business to be classified as a “transportation network company (TNC).”
Major ride-booking companies Uber and Lyft also are considered TNCs. Uber in 2017 announced in a company blog that its service was “available across the entire state,” though Crawford, who noted he previously was an Uber driver, said it has been his experience that Uber typically doesn’t transport passengers from Edisto Island.
On its website, Lyft says it operates in Charleston, Clemson, Columbia, Greenville, Myrtle Beach and Spartanburg.
State law defines a TNC as a “person, corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, or other entity” that uses a “digital network, platform, or Internet-enabled application to connect a passenger to a transportation network driver for the purpose of providing transportation for compensation using a vehicle.”
Under Stavrinakis’ bill, a “personal” vehicle covered by the TNC law could be – though not required to be – registered or licensed as a charter limousine by the S.C. Public Service Commission (PSC), or as a limousine or other “for-hire” vehicle by the governing body of a county or incorporated municipality. The bill also would change the TNC law to include limousines and other for-hire vehicles under the “prearranged ride” section of the law.
Crawford said he would classify his van as a type of limousine within a TNC.
TNCs are regulated primarily through the state Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS); contested cases can be appealed to the PSC. ORS and the PSC jointly handle the regulation of Class C carriers, such as taxis and charter limousines.
A charter limousine with a Class C certificate can carry up to 15 passengers but in contrast to taxis, “accepts passengers exclusively on a pre-arranged basis where pricing is determined on an hourly basis,” according to the ORS website.
A Class C taxi is defined on the site as “any motor vehicle carrier equipped to carry up to 15 passengers and operates on call or demand/response service where pricing is determined on a per trip basis.”
Asked why he doesn’t consider his business a taxi service, Crawford replied, “You’re not a taxi service because you’re scheduled in advance through a digital platform, such as a website. … You’re not hailed.”
“Under my LLC, I have drivers who are basically brokered out for the rides I can’t take,” he added, noting he takes up to six passengers in his van for a $100 flat fee between the hours of 6 a.m. and 11 a.m., and $120 per trip during other hours.
Records show that since 2000, Stavrinakis has introduced TNC legislation at least four times, including his latest bill, which the House Labor, Commerce and Industry (LCI) Committee officially received on Jan. 14, where it has remained.
Last year and in 2021, the bill unanimously passed the House with strong bipartisan support but didn’t make it out of the Senate Transportation and Judiciary committees, respectively. The Senate Transportation Committee is chaired by Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Berkeley; Sen. Luke Rankin, R-Horry, is the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman.
“It’s a simple, cut-and-dry issue,” said Rep. Shannon Erickson, R-Beaufort, when contacted recently by The Nerve. “You’re allowing one group to move into the world of ridesharing. It’s not opening up the (legal) code for everything.”
“We were cutting regulations and red tape,” she added.
Erickson chairs the House Education and Public Works Committee, which passed the bill last year before the full House approved it in a 110-0 vote. The bill also passed the House in 2021 by a 111-0 vote.
“No one opposed the bill before my committee,” Erickson said.
Asked why the bill has stalled in the Senate in recent years, Sen. Chip Campsen, R-Charleston, who is a Senate Transportation Committee member, told The Nerve when contacted recently: “I really just think it probably needs someone to be an advocate for it. … It looks fine, and I don’t think you’d find any real opposition to it. You just need to get it done. We’ve had a lot of really big issues this year.”
“I’m sure Larry (Grooms) has no problem with it,” Campsen added. “But there are just a lot of other issues; it’s not really top-of-the-mind awareness, perhaps.”
Interviewed recently by The Nerve, Rep. Bill Herbkersman, R-Beaufort, who is chairman of the House LCI Committee, said he likely will assign Stavrinakis’ latest bill to the Regulatory Review Subcommittee, headed by Rep. Chris Wooten, R-Lexington, for public hearings after the Legislature reconvenes in January.
“I think this one needs to go into the regulations subcommittee,” noting that Wooten is “charged with the point of starting at no regulations … unless he figures there needs to be something, and it has be really solid and really needed.”
Herbkersman, of Bluffton, said he is sympathetic to Crawford’s position.
“We live this down here,” he said. “We have so many retirees down here, and they can’t drive to get their medicine. They can’t drive to their doctors. They can’t drive to the post office. They can’t drive to the airport to go somewhere. I think restricting that is crazy.”
Herbkersman added that in his area, there are “some Moms whose kids are in school at that time, and they’re trying to be entrepreneurial in the time allotted to them, which they can’t do in very many jobs. Are we going to try to stifle that?”
Erickson, who formerly chaired the House Ways and Means Transportation and Regulatory Subcommittee, said she believes a “new check-in” on the issue is warranted.
“Serving businesses in South Carolina is what we do,” she said. “I don’t think overloading businesses with regulations is a good thing.”
Crawford said he’s not opposed to complying with basic safety regulations, but as a business owner, he would prefer to do it on his own and provide the state with records of compliance, instead of having the state directly handle those functions, citing, as an example, required inspections of taxis by ORS staff.
Herbkersman said he is wary of additional regulations for businesses such as Crawford’s, noting, “You start with one, and it seems like a good idea, but maybe it’s not a good idea.”
"Lawmakers in South Carolina should be working to relieve regulatory burdens and get out of the way of small businesses in the state," said Sam Aaron, research director of the South Carolina Policy Council – the parent organization of The Nerve.
Taxis and TNCs
Taxis, charter buses, charter limousines and other “for-hire” vehicles currently aren’t classified as “personal” vehicles under the state law regulating transportation network companies.
The law defines a personal vehicle as a vehicle used by a TNC driver “in connection with a providing a prearranged ride,” described in part as when a “driver accepts a ride requested by a rider through a digital network controlled” by the TNC.
Stavrinakis’ bill would classify PSC-approved charter limousines, or limousines or other “for-hire” vehicles registered or licensed by counties or incorporated municipalities, as personal vehicles under the TNC law.
To operate in South Carolina, TNCs must submit an application to ORS, which will issue a TNC permit if the application is approved, according to the ORS website. Class C carriers, such as taxis and charter limousines, have to submit an application to the PSC; if the application is approved, the companies then must obtain a “Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity” from ORS, according to the site.
The TNC application is shorter compared to a PSC application for a taxi company, a review by The Nerve found. The PSC application, for example, asks applicants for details on their business assets and liabilities, the counties where they want to operate, and specifics on their vehicles. Both taxi and TNC applicants are required to provide information about their auto liability coverage.
“Right now, I’m driving with a $1 million rider and all the highest levels of insurance I could get,” Crawford said about the insurance coverage on his van used in his business, which he added he can afford for now without a Class C certificate.
As for vehicle inspections, ORS staff must inspect taxis before issuing certificates, according to the PSC application. In comparison, TNCs must have certified mechanics do inspections of their vehicles at least annually, and ORS can inspect the vehicles, under the law.
In addition, criminal background and sex offender registry checks are required for TNC and taxi drivers.
Online ORS records show that as of June 19, there were 156 active taxi businesses with a total of 378 vehicles and at least 199 charter limousine companies with a collective 616 vehicles operating in South Carolina with Class C certificates.
“Due to the permissive nature of the bill, it is unknown how many (Class C) charter limousines may choose to operate as a TNC,” the state Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office said in a fiscal impact statement with Stavrinakis’ bill last year.
Under state law, Class A, B and C carriers must pay an annual fee of $50 per vehicle to ORS. Class A vehicles are buses that operate on regular routes and schedules, while Class B buses don’t have fixed routes on schedules, according to the ORS website.
Besides taxis and charter limousines, Class C vehicles include charter buses that carry 16 or more passengers, wheelchair vans and stretcher vans for those riders who can’t walk and can’t be transported in a taxi or wheelchair van, the site says.
Statutory secrecy
But the number of transportation network company vehicles, including the number of Uber and Lyft drivers, currently operating in South Carolina isn’t publicly available because state law protects the secrecy of those operations.
Online ORS records, for example, show a total of six TNC companies, including Lyft Inc. and Uber subsidiary Rasier LLC, currently “active” in the state, though the total number of vehicles for each company is not listed.
As for state fees owed by TNCs, state law requires those businesses to pay ORS 1% of their gross trip fares collected every calendar quarter. ORS keeps 1% of the received amounts – known as “local assessment fees” – to cover its administrative costs and sends 99% of the fees to local municipalities and counties where the trips originated during the reporting periods.
Records show that for fiscal 2023 – the most recently available year – ORS received $2,049,390 in total local assessment fees. Of that amount, a collective $2,028,875 was remitted to eligible municipalities and counties, according to ORS Deputy Executive Director Ben Mustian.
But Mustian declined to give more specifics on the remitted assessment fees when contacted recently by The Nerve.
Asked for a breakdown by municipality and county of the remitted fees, as well as the total number of active Uber and Lyft drivers in those areas, Mustian in a written response said, citing state law, that information maintained by TNCs or obtained by ORS, or any records that “incorporate covered information under state law,” can’t be released under the S.C. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
He added that by law, ORS also can’t release records or information provided by a TNC unless disclosure is required “by a subpoena or court order.”
The Nerve subsequently asked ORS under the FOIA to release a breakdown of local assessment fees remitted by ORS to municipalities and counties since 2023. The agency didn’t respond by publication of this story.
Brundrett is the news editor of The Nerve (www.thenerve.org). Contact him at 803-394-8273 or [email protected]. Follow The Nerve on Facebook, Instagram and X (formerlyTwitter) @thenervesc.
Nerve stories are free to reprint and repost with permission by and credit to The Nerve.