The statement "Unlike plug-in electric models, they still must be powered by fossil fuels." is unequivocally NOT correct. Plug-electric models are powered by fossil fuels. That is a fact, unless you're claiming that the US power grid is 100% non-fossil.

Your point that it comes out "hugely in favor in EV", is debatable, this is a very complex issue as as the power grid economics is complex and is driven by many factors such as what state you live in, time of day and year of the charging (i.e. the loading on the system and the need to fire up temporary plants to handle load which are almost all inefficient fossil plants), and then you really need to compare EV's with hybrids which are approx 2X more efficient from a direct comparison of fossil fuel consumption. This is part of the reason why Toyota is taking their position and why Honda a few years back was looking at Hydrogen (which of course is another complex issue - where does the hydrogen come from and what is the the level of fossil fuels) required to process that.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when folks don't tie together the use of EV's with the need for reducing the amount of fossil fuels consumed by our power grid. Probably because it's easier to sell a dream and pretend that this is really simple, and you're right, without actually solving the problem which would require more aggressive investments in non-fossil energy, including nuclear. Of course that's really complicated, so it's just easier pushing EV's, which if done properly (ie. with a companion policy of cleaning up the power grid) could improve carbon footprint and reducing the money we give to rogue nations, but if done improperly would increase our carbon footprint, but at least reduce the money we give to rogue nations to get oil.