Well, that depends on how profligate your use of electricity is. I guess. I live in PA (Bucks County), and we have photovoltaics on our roof. In reaction to the statement above, I took a look at our most recent PECO bill. We're not users of excessive electricity, apparently, because in February (not a notoriously big month for solar generation in Pennsylvania), our PVs produced 75% of our total kilowatt-hour usage. In February. In Pennsylvania. With a bit more than half our roof sporting panels (the southeast face, with just two panels on the other side).
Obviously, adding an EV charger would increase our total KwH usage. But still...this isn't rocket science.
In response to a broader comment... Sometimes, government has to push the market in directions that the market would not go on its own, to achieve public benefits, to address problems that "market forces" will not address. Market failures do occur. In particular, markets are abysmal at responding to long-term challenges - e.g., challenges whose time horizon is longer than the investment horizon of market players. Markets don't respond until the challenges create shorter-term problems. So, if we confront a long-term challenge that is serious (or existential), by the time the market reacts, we're looking at a crisis...or, in the worst case, an insoluble disaster.
Yes... I respect the power of markets. But I don't worship them. I don't have uncritical faith in "the market," (or, I hope, in anything else). It's pretty clear to me that "the market" is not going to address our societal over-production of carbon dioxide until well after it's possible to do much about it (assuming that it's not already too late). If government does not intervene, we will not respond. The market aggregates myriad short term choices - usually driven by greed and selfishness. In 2022, the market basically does not factor in what impact today's decisions will have in 2050. If governmental policy does not step in...well, then it's "let tomorrow take care of tomorrow."