While I understand your point that the fence is required to be grounded, but without an equipotential ground grid, it remains my opinion, that grounding the fence increases the hazard.
I would agree that bonding could increase the hazard if not done correctly. Simple grounding alone does not.
However, a simple ground does not appear to be allowed for the case being discussed since it would appear we have a substation and the new rule, well, rules.
And for the ground grid to work with a grounded fence, it would have to extend beyond the fence so that if there is an event that results in ground potential rise, both the ground around the fence and the fence rise together.
But of course. Exactly what an NESC design does.
Are you suggesting that we need an equipotential ground grid around a pad mount transformer? There are hundreds of them in my area that are accessible to the public and there is no type of ground grid around the transformer. At most you might find a few ground rods for the grounding electrode system for the transformer primary.
I have made no such suggestion but am merely discussing NEC requirements. A padmount alone does not a substation make.
However, if one wanted to mitigate touch and step potential problems around a padmount or other such conductive equipment, that would certainly work. I can guarantee you there are risky locations, and not only in your area.
Needed to mitigate risk? Yes, or an equivalent, if mitigating that risk is a goal.
Needed per the rules? It doesn't appear to be required.
