- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Bryan,
I note that the Florida code has used the words "may energize" as opposed to the wording in the NEC that says "likely to become energized". If the Florida wording was used in 250.4(A)(4), then it would be my opinion that the framing members would be required to be bonded. To me, if the words "may be energized" are used, then bonding is required if there is any possible way that the item could be energized, but when the words "likely to become energized" are used, then bonding is only required if there is a reasonable possibility that the item would become energized. Note that CMP 5 does not agree with my statement and maintains that both sets of words mean exactly the same thing.
Don
I note that the Florida code has used the words "may energize" as opposed to the wording in the NEC that says "likely to become energized". If the Florida wording was used in 250.4(A)(4), then it would be my opinion that the framing members would be required to be bonded. To me, if the words "may be energized" are used, then bonding is required if there is any possible way that the item could be energized, but when the words "likely to become energized" are used, then bonding is only required if there is a reasonable possibility that the item would become energized. Note that CMP 5 does not agree with my statement and maintains that both sets of words mean exactly the same thing.
Don
