bphgravity said:Section 250.104(C) of the NEC, maybe. Section 250.4(A)(4) & (5). Section 250.96.
nakulak said:I have never interpreted "likely to become energized" to equate with "likely to be struck by lightning". Does your jurisdiction interpret these to mean the same thing ?
iwire said:In my opinion there is no section in the NEC that ever requires the metal roof on a dwelling to be bonded.
I'm unaware of any requirement either however I would be interested to know if any one thinks it would be a good idea. Lightning scares the hell out of me in general and I recently moved into a house with a metal roof and I wonder ....nakulak said:"likely to be struck by lightning" was the only reasoning I could see for having lightning protection, I did not see the term. "likely to become energized" was, I assume, the reason that those code sections were quoted ?
(unless I am missing something ?? I was unaware that metal roofs had bonding requirements according to NEC)
wbalsam1 said:It seems to me that if there is electrical equipment mounted on a conductive roof or siding, such as a roof de-icer, etc., that the equipment grounding conductor of the circuit "likely to energize" the roof or siding would be sufficient. :smile: