Hooking the EG4 6000xp to a Manual Transfer Switch with 10 or 12 circuits

[rmassuser]

I have a 6000XP coming in a few days and I have some basic questions. My goal is to remove some large loads from my main panel and reduce my electric bill by running these off the 6000XP which will have its own solar panels. There are two ways to do this, as far as I can tell:

1) Permanently remove circuits from the main panel to a critical load panel, i.e. my smaller Mitsubishi heat pump would be the first to go. After that, the water heater. It would free up slots in the main panel.

2) Move circuits to a manual transfer switch instead, so that they can be still run off the main panel, and I can select which ones I want to run off grid. My hunch is that the Municipality will like this better, even if it costs $600 or $700 more because this will keep critical appliances on grid (if my off grid system fails, etc.). Also I might be able to switch more circuits to off grid in the summer when my solar production is higher, and switch them back in winter to the main panel.

Am I correct to assume that the town (and my electrician) would be more favorable to a design that uses the transfer switch INSTEAD of a critical loads panel?

My second question is AFCI/GFCI protection. I have several circuits that require it. However the cost of the AFCI breaker is enormous. $130 for a 2 pole AFCI breaker, 30 amps, and $60 for a 15 amp breaker. I was asked by the inspector to add AFCI to several circuits and GFCI to several others. The cost of the breakers needed for the main panel and also duplicating this for the transfer switch is close to $1000. So I am interested in finding out if I can buy a transfer switch that has some of the AFCI or GFCI breakers pre installed.

The Reliance (see photo from walmart.com) comes with standard breakers including two double-pole ones. Out of the box it takes care of my heat pump and water heater plus 6 additional circuits. Not as much as I want but it's a start. So I am interesting in learning what other products can handle 8 or more of my main home circuits. The manual for the Reliance says that I can swap out their preinstalled breakers and replace them with AFCI or GFCI if needed, so I need to also budget for that cost.

 

[ChrisG]

@FilterGuy had a thread on these transfer switches with GFCI and AFCI. One of the issues is switching the neutrals over as well from what I understand. There was also a separate neutral kit Reliance sold at one point.

I have the 310c version of the reliance. My GFCI/AFCi circuits do trip in main panel when moving from Line to Gen. just need to reset them if going back to Line. I do not have GFCI/AFCI in the Reliance as was not required by my AHJ as it was installed for emergency backup .

 

[timselectric]

I would only recommend a critical loads panel. Especially when you have GFCI and AFCI circuits. The reliance transfer panel only switches the line side of the circuits. The neutral continues to go through the original breaker. This is a safety issue for service work.
The breaker appears to be safe, because it's in the off position. But current is still flowing through the breaker. Someone can get hurt, by assuming that "off" is safe.

 

[rmassuser]

I would only recommend a critical loads panel. Especially when you have GFCI and AFCI circuits. The reliance transfer panel only switches the line side of the circuits. The neutral continues to go through the original breaker. This is a safety issue for service work.
The breaker appears to be safe, because it's in the off position. But current is still flowing through the breaker. Someone can get hurt, by assuming that "off" is safe.

Thanks for the info on this. Is this safety problem also true with other transfer units, like the ConnElectric (pic below)?

If I end up going with critical loads panel, then what size and brand of panel do you recommend? I would of course prefer to reuse my existing Siemens Q breakers but I am not sure whether I need a 60A or 100A or 150A sub panel to run 6 120v circuits, a heat pump circuit that is 20A, and a water heater circuit that is 30A -- all powered off of my new EG4 inverter.

 

[timselectric]

Thanks for the info on this. Is this safety problem also true with other transfer units, like the ConnElectric (pic below)?

I don't know how that one is designed. But I would guess that it's the same.

If I end up going with critical loads panel, then what size and brand of panel do you recommend? I would of course prefer to reuse my existing Siemens Q breakers but I am not sure whether I need a 60A or 100A or 150A sub panel to run 6 120v circuits, a heat pump circuit that is 20A, and a water heater circuit that is 30A -- all powered off of my new EG4 inverter.

Sticking with the same brand is always preferred.
Panel feeder size is based on the source. (Output rating of inverter)

 

[teal95]

Go for the biggest panel you can get. They're usually not that much more expensive and anyone doing DIY solar is very likely to keep adding circuits.

 

[FilterGuy]

The breaker appears to be safe, because it's in the off position. But current is still flowing through the breaker.

Current is still flowing through the neutral.... but not the breaker. However, current on the neutral can be a safety hazard during maintenance if the service person is unaware.

Personally, if I were to service a system, I would shut off all battery/solar systems even if I did not think they were involved in what I was working on. With Solar and particularly with batteries, There are too many exceptions to what is 'normal' to do anything else. In retrofits like being discussed here, that is doubly true.

 

[timselectric]

Current is still flowing through the neutral.... but not the breaker. However, current on the neutral can be a safety hazard during maintenance if the service person is unaware.

The neutral of a GFCI or AFCI breaker flows through the breaker.

 

[FilterGuy]

Yup, I stand corrected. I was thinking about a regular breaker.

 

[rmassuser]

Can someone explain how this is dangerous on an EG4 6000xp which uses "common neutral" wiring and also the the inverter expects a ground neutral bond at the main panel. So if the neutral is grounded then why is this a safety hazard?

If you take a look at this video, where the presenter seems to know his stuff, he seems to suggest that there is not an issue with the 6000XP when used with this kind of transfer switch. Scroll to 11:30 in the video and you will see it.

Keep in mind that I am not using the old 6000EX, this is the brand new XP which has the same grounding scheme as the SolArk and the EG4 18Kpv.

 

[timselectric]

Can someone explain how this is dangerous on an EG4 6000xp

It doesn't matter which inverter is used.
The transfer panel is the problem. (When switching GFCI or AFCI breakered circuits)

and also the the inverter expects a ground neutral bond at the main panel.

The inverter doesn't care if the neutral is bonded, anywhere.

The problem is that the line is switched away from the breaker, but the neutral isn't.

Edit: this has nothing to do with grounding or bonding.

 

[FilterGuy]

Can someone explain how this is dangerous on an EG4 6000xp which uses "common neutral" wiring and also the the inverter expects a ground neutral bond at the main panel. So if the neutral is grounded then why is this a safety hazard?

In normal operation, it is not. However, when someone is servicing the system it there can be voltage on the neutral when it is not expected.

To properly wire GFCI breakers with a reliant the neutral line of the circuit must be in series between the GFCI breaker in the main panel and the GFCI breaker in the reliance.



If a service person turns off the breaker in one box but not the other, the neutral wire will present with 120V even though the breaker is off. This becomes a safety hazard because he might assume it is safe and touch it.

 

[ChrisG]

Contractors just need to be hyper aware that a second source is feeding circuits in the main panel. Safest to stop or actually disconnect whatever is feeding the transfer switch because of neutral

 

[FilterGuy]

If you take a look at this video,

That is a great video. I am pretty sure he studied some of my forum resources before he made the video. He is using a lot of terminology that I made up because there was no industry standard naming for things like dynamic bonding and common neutral. He did a pretty good job with it. However, he did not cover GFCI setups with the Reliance multi-circuit transfer switch. As you can see from the diagram above.... that gets convoluted.

 

[timselectric]

Contractors just need to be hyper aware that a second source is feeding circuits in the main panel.

A sticker on the panel takes care of that.
But that's not the problem. The problem is improper use of the GFCI and AFCI breakers.

 

[FilterGuy]

In normal operation, it is not. However, when someone is servicing the system it there can be voltage on the neutral when it is not expected.

To properly wire GFCI breakers with a reliant the neutral line of the circuit must be in series between the GFCI breaker in the main panel and the GFCI breaker in the reliance.

View attachment 180981

If a service person turns off the breaker in one box but not the other, the neutral wire will present with 120V even though the breaker is off. This becomes a safety hazard because he might assume it is safe and touch it.

BTW: The diagram above shows how reliance instructs the user. If your main breaker box has plug-in neutral you can still use a breaker with the neutral pigtail, but if the GFCI breaker uses the plug-in neutral the wiring has to be slightly different.




If the situation allowed it, I would remove the GFCI breakers from the breaker panels and put a GFCI receptacle at the load.

 

[timselectric]

If the situation allowed it, I would remove the GFCI breakers from the breaker panels and put a GFCI receptacle at the load.

Ditto

 

[ksmithaz1]

https://www.amazon.com/Square-Schneider-Electric-HOM2448M100PCVP-48-Circuit/dp/B00N01TMQE/ref=sr_1_1?crid=21H70B4XZH72W&keywords=100A+homeline+panel&qid=1701921595&sprefix=100a+homeline+pane%2Caps%2C248&sr=8-1

You can just buy a 24 slot 100A panel for a little over $100. Wire the feed to the panel from common on a 100A transfer switch with #2 (For future expansion). Wire a 50A breaker from your current panel, and your inverter outputs with #4/#6 to the transfer switch inputs. I would use an automagic one YMMV. Add a few bucks of wire and conduit, you are in business. Add breakers to the new panel and move service as you see fit, one circuit at a time.

Ground the new panel box and the inverter to the main panel ground, do not bond neutral there. Minimal cash outlay, maximal performance and upgrade capability. You can likely put everything you have over if you expand your solar.

This is what I did, I actually moved services into the sub-panel one at a time. In one case I replaced some aluminum wiring (To my HWH) with copper at both ends during the move. I have a couple of circuits in J-boxes that would not reach easily when back-pulled. They give you a handfull of breakers with the panel, I replaced almost all.

 

[ksmithaz1]

BTW: The diagram above shows how reliance instructs the user. If your main breaker box has plug-in neutral you can still use a breaker with the neutral pigtail, but if the GFCI breaker uses the plug-in neutral the wiring has to be slightly different.

View attachment 180992


If the situation allowed it, I would remove the GFCI breakers from the breaker panels and put a GFCI receptacle at the load.

Ditto

I feel like it's cleaner from a wiring standpoint, and a lot easier if the darn thing trips. That being said is there some other reason you guys prefer it at the outlet? I had an electrician tell me the panel was better, I'm not sure why.

 

[FilterGuy]

That being said is there some other reason you guys prefer it at the outlet?

The way the Reliance system has you re-rout the hots is unusual...but can be understood by a reasonably competent person. To get the two GFCIs properly hooked up goes way past unusual and into strange. Even with what I now know I would probably scratch my head a bit if I opened a system and saw it. Most people will not be able to understand it unless they draw out the schematic and study how it is all supposed to work. The likelihood of getting it wrong is reasonably high compared to most house wiring.... The chance of of some service guy screwing it up is probably higher. He might even take a look at a properly wired set up and decide he needs to 'fix it' for you.

If you replace the GFCI breakers with regular breakers, the wiring goes back to just being 'unusual',. However, you do have to put a GFCI receptacle downstream of the Reliant if the circuit needs to be GFCI protected. The good news is that there is nothing unusual about how you would install it.

I had an electrician tell me the panel was better, I'm not sure why.

I wonder what aspect(s) he was considering when he made the statement.

Are GFCI receptacles less likely to trip if there is leakage..... ? I doubt there is a big difference.
Are GFCI receptacles more likely to fail....I have no data, but my guess is if you buy the quality ones the difference is negligible. If you buy the cheapest GFCI Receptacle at the big box HW store.....it will be more likely to fail after a few years than the GFCI breakers in the load panels. (You can't really find cheapo versions of the breakers for a breaker box becaus the breaker has to be certified for the box it is being put in.)

Personally, I like having the resetable GFCI receptacle near the load.... it is easy to reset and easy to test without going to the breaker box.

Having said all that, in each new release of the NEC they are adding additional GFCI requirements. I would not be surprised if there are some instances where the GFCI protection must be in the breaker box.