guest column

Expert: 5 ways residential charging enhances the environmental benefits of EVs

This Earth Week, let's consider the benefits of home charging for electric vehicles. Photo via Getty Images

Electric vehicles are already considered as an environmentally conscientious alternative to traditional internal combustion engine vehicles, thanks to their zero tailpipe emissions. However, the environmental benefits of EVs can be further enhanced by implementing a home-base charging routine.

This is important not only for individuals looking to cut their household’s carbon footprint, but also for corporations that operate EV fleets and are looking for additional cost and environmental savings as part of their larger sustainability initiatives. What makes home charging the most eco-conscious option?

1. Increased use of renewable energy

More than 4 million homes in the United States support rooftop solar panels that provide renewable energy back to the property or back to the local grid. When EV owners install solar panels or other renewable energy systems at their homes, they can charge their vehicles using this clean energy, effectively reducing the carbon footprint associated with their EV use to nearly zero. This direct use of renewables circumvents the inefficiencies and emissions associated with the broader energy grid which, depending on the location, may still rely on fossil fuels to a significant extent. This synergy between EVs and clean local energy production is exemplified by Tesla’s solar roof program, which promotes the adoption of clean home-based energy production as part of the holistic EV ownership experience offered through their app.

2. Optimizing charging times for lower emissions

Home charging allows for more flexible and strategic charging schedules. EV owners can often take advantage of off-peak electricity rates and lower carbon intensity periods by charging their vehicles overnight or when renewable energy production (such as wind or solar power) is at its peak. This not only leads to cost savings for the consumer, but also contributes to a balanced demand on the electric grid, reducing the need for high-carbon emergency power sources that are sometimes activated during peak demand times. Apps like WhenToPlugIn use a carbon intensity forecasting tool to help consumers pick the best times to charge.

3. Reducing dependency on public charging infrastructure

Public charging stations are crucial for long-distance EV travel. For everyday use, the current public charging landscape is trailing the demand curve. The good news is that the majority of EV drivers can rely almost solely on home charging. This practice ensures public charging spots remain open for those who, due to circumstances such as residing in multi-unit dwellings without charging facilities, cannot charge at home. Consequently, this accessibility supports wider adoption of EVs, leading to a more substantial reduction in overall emissions.

4. Avoiding unnecessary travel to public charging stations

The average driver has to detour 2 miles to refill their gas tank. For electric vehicles, finding an available public charger can add many more miles to a trip. Home charging ensures that EVs can start each day with a “full tank” — which, with new EVs, means hundreds of miles of range before needing to plug in again. This reduction in driven miles not only saves time but also decreases the energy consumption and emissions associated with traveling to and from charging stations unnecessarily. By charging at home, EV owners can ensure their vehicles are ready to go without extra trips, further cutting down on the vehicle's overall environmental impact.

5. Enhancing battery longevity

Charging at home typically involves slower charging speeds compared to rapid chargers found in public stations. These slower, more controlled charging rates are less taxing on an EV's battery, contributing to longer battery life and better overall efficiency. Longer battery lifespans mean fewer replacements over the vehicle's life, significantly reducing the environmental impact associated with battery production and disposal. This not only has clear environmental benefits but also economic ones for the vehicle owner.

Conclusion

The environmental benefits of electric vehicles are well-documented, but by incorporating home charging, these benefits are amplified significantly. Through the increased use of renewable energy, optimizing charging times to utilize green power, and reducing reliance on public charging infrastructure, EV owners can further reduce their environmental footprint. As technology advances and the energy grid becomes cleaner, the potential for home charging to contribute to a more sustainable future only grows, reinforcing the role of electric vehicles in the transition to greener transportation options.

———

Kate L. Harrison is the co-founder and head of marketing at MoveEV, an AI-backed EV transition company that helps organizations convert fleet and employee-owned gas vehicles to electric, and reimburse for charging at home.

Trending News

A View From HETI

No critical minerals, no modern economy. Getty images

If you’re reading this on a phone, driving an EV, flying in a plane, or relying on the power grid to keep your lights on, you’re benefiting from critical minerals. These are the building blocks of modern life. Things like copper, lithium, nickel, rare earth elements, and titanium, they’re found in everything from smartphones to solar panels to F-35 fighter jets.

In short: no critical minerals, no modern economy.

These minerals aren’t just useful, they’re essential. And in the U.S., we don’t produce enough of them. Worse, we’re heavily dependent on countries that don’t always have our best interests at heart. That’s a serious vulnerability, and we’ve done far too little to fix it.

Where We Use Them and Why We’re Behind

Let’s start with where these minerals show up in daily American life:

  • Electric vehicles need lithium, cobalt, and nickel for batteries.
  • Wind turbines and solar panels rely on rare earths and specialty metals.
  • Defense systems require titanium, beryllium, and rare earths.
  • Basic infrastructure like power lines and buildings depend on copper and aluminum.

You’d think that something so central to the economy, and to national security, would be treated as a top priority. But we’ve let production and processing capabilities fall behind at home, and now we’re playing catch-up.

The Reality Check: We’re Not in Control

Right now, the U.S. is deeply reliant on foreign sources for critical minerals, especially China. And it’s not just about mining. China dominates processing and refining too, which means they control critical links in the supply chain.

Gabriel Collins and Michelle Michot Foss from the Baker Institute lay all this out in a recent report that every policymaker should read. Their argument is blunt: if we don’t get a handle on this, we’re in trouble, both economically and militarily.

China has already imposed export controls on key rare earth elements like dysprosium and terbium which are critical for magnets, batteries, and defense technologies, in direct response to new U.S. tariffs. This kind of tit-for-tat escalation exposes just how much leverage we’ve handed over. If this continues, American manufacturers could face serious material shortages, higher costs, and stalled projects.

We’ve seen this movie before, in the pandemic, when supply chains broke and countries scrambled for basics like PPE and semiconductors. We should’ve learned our lesson.

We Do Have a Stockpile, But We Need a Strategy

Unlike during the Cold War, the U.S. no longer maintains comprehensive strategic reserves across the board, but we do have stockpiles managed by the Defense Logistics Agency. The real issue isn’t absence, it’s strategy: what to stockpile, how much, and under what assumptions.

Collins and Michot Foss argue for a more robust and better-targeted approach. That could mean aiming for 12 to 18 months worth of demand for both civilian and defense applications. Achieving that will require:

  • Smarter government purchasing and long-term contracts
  • Strategic deals with allies (e.g., swapping titanium for artillery shells with Ukraine)
  • Financing mechanisms to help companies hold critical inventory for emergency use

It’s not cheap, but it’s cheaper than scrambling mid-crisis when supplies are suddenly cut off.

The Case for Advanced Materials: Substitutes That Work Today

One powerful but often overlooked solution is advanced materials, which can reduce our dependence on vulnerable mineral supply chains altogether.

Take carbon nanotube (CNT) fibers, a cutting-edge material invented at Rice University. CNTs are lighter, stronger, and more conductive than copper. And unlike some future tech, this isn’t hypothetical: we could substitute CNTs for copper wire harnesses in electrical systems today.

As Michot Foss explained on the Energy Forum podcast:

“You can substitute copper and steel and aluminum with carbon nanotube fibers and help offset some of those trade-offs and get performance enhancements as well… If you take carbon nanotube fibers and you put those into a wire harness… you're going to be reducing the weight of that wire harness versus a metal wire harness like we already use. And you're going to be getting the same benefit in terms of electrical conductivity, but more strength to allow the vehicle, the application, the aircraft, to perform better.”

By accelerating R&D and deployment of CNTs and similar substitutes, we can reduce pressure on strained mineral supply chains, lower emissions, and open the door to more secure and sustainable manufacturing.

We Have Tools. We Need to Use Them.

The report offers a long list of solutions. Some are familiar, like tax incentives, public-private partnerships, and fast-tracked permits. Others draw on historical precedent, like “preclusive purchasing,” a WWII tactic where the U.S. bought up materials just so enemies couldn’t.

We also need to get creative:

  • Repurpose existing industrial sites into mineral hubs
  • Speed up R&D for substitutes and recycling
  • Buy out risky foreign-owned assets in friendlier countries

Permitting remains one of the biggest hurdles. In the U.S., it can take 7 to 10 years to approve a new critical minerals project, a timeline that doesn’t match the urgency of our strategic needs. As Collins said on the Energy Forum podcast:

“Time kills deals... That’s why it’s more attractive generally to do these projects elsewhere.”

That’s the reality we’re up against. Long approval windows discourage investment and drive developers to friendlier jurisdictions abroad. One encouraging step is the use of the Defense Production Act to fast-track permitting under national security grounds. That kind of shift, treating permitting as a strategic imperative, must become the norm, not the exception.

It’s Time to Redefine Sustainability

Sustainability has traditionally focused on cutting carbon emissions. That’s still crucial, but we need a broader definition. Today, energy and materials security are just as important.

Countries are now weighing cost and reliability alongside emissions goals. We're also seeing renewed attention to recycling, biodiversity, and supply chain resilience.

Net-zero by 2050 is still a target. But reality is forcing a more nuanced discussion:

  • What level of warming is politically and economically sustainable?
  • What tradeoffs are we willing to make to ensure energy access and affordability?

The bottom line: we can’t build a clean energy future without secure access to materials. Recycling helps, but it’s not enough. We'll need new mines, new tech, and a more flexible definition of sustainability.

My Take: We’re Running Out of Time

This isn’t just a policy debate. It’s a test of whether we’ve learned anything from the past few years of disruption. We’re not facing an open war, but the risks are real and growing.

We need to treat critical minerals like what they are: a strategic necessity. That means rebuilding stockpiles, reshoring processing, tightening alliances, and accelerating permitting across the board.

It won’t be easy. But if we wait until a real crisis hits, it’ll be too late.

———

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally appeared on LinkedIn on April 11, 2025.


Trending News