# Evaluating Effects of Electric Vehicle Chargers on Residential Power Infrastructure
## 1 Introduction  
Electric vehicle (EV) adoption is accelerating globally, driven by the urgent demand for sustainable and environmentally friendly transportation solutions, particularly in densely populated urban environments [1]. The global effort to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate climate change has further strengthened the preference for EVs over traditional internal combustion engine vehicles [2]. While diesel-powered vehicles may demonstrate greater efficiency in certain conditions, especially when EVs are charged from fossil fuel sources, a comprehensive life cycle assessment is essential to accurately evaluate their overall environmental impact. Government incentives, technological innovation, and heightened environmental consciousness among consumers are also playing pivotal roles in facilitating this transition. As a result, the rapid growth in EV ownership has been paralleled by an increasing demand for an accessible and efficient EV charging infrastructure [3, 4]. To meet diverse user requirements, a wide variety of EV charging stations are now available [5]. These differ not only in charging speed and power output but also in thetype of electrical supply that they utilize. EV chargers are generally categorized as either alternating current (AC) or direct current (DC) types. Although EV batteries require DC input, AC chargers are widely used--particularly in residential and public settings--due to the existing AC-based power grid. In these configurations, onboard chargers (on-BCs) housed within the vehicle perform AC-to-DC conversion. In contrast, off-board chargers (off-BCs), commonly found in high-power DC fast charging stations, handle this conversion externally. The choice between on- and off-board systems depends on multiple factors, including the charging environment, the available infrastructure, and user-specific needs. EV chargers range from slow residential units to ultra-fast public charging stations, each tailored to different usage contexts. Public stations, typically located in parking structures, in commercial hubs, and along major highways, offer convenience for drivers seeking quick top-ups during commutes or long-distance travel [6; 7]. However, recent research has highlighted the spatial disparities in access to these facilities. Socioeconomic and demographic variables significantly influence distribution: affluent neighborhoods tend to benefit from greater charger availability, while areas with higher shares of racial minorities or older residents are underserved. Moreover, built environmental factors also contribute to these disparities. For instance, the Western United States shows a disproportionately higher density of charging infrastructure, whereas highly populated urban zones paradoxically report lower access. These inequalities underscore the need for equitable infrastructure planning to ensure inclusive EV adoption. A significant component of the evolving charging landscape includes the transformation of traditional gas stations into hybrid facilities equipped with EV charging points [8]. Established oil service providers are adapting to remain competitive in an era of decreasing fossil fuel dependency. Simultaneously, new market players are entering the sector, establishing standalone EV charging hubs that expand the overall diversity and availability of infrastructure options [9]. Another widely adopted configuration is the installation of private chargers within residential buildings, particularly in individual homes [10]. These charges are well suited for residents who have both adequate space and the capacity to upgrade their local electrical infrastructure. Home charging is typically more cost-effective and convenient for routine use, enabling EV owners to recharge their vehicles overnight. This charging pattern aligns well with typical driving behaviors. A European study, for example, found that approximately 75% of observed vehicles traveled less than 47 km per day, while rental EVs reported a daily average of 66.5 km.