First, while PTFE (Teflon) tape may be UL listed; it isn?t listed for electrical purposes. TFE is recognized for certain insulation types, Type TFE for example [Table 310.104(A)]; but PTHE tapes have no recognized ?White Book? applications.
Second, CMP14 is paranoid about bonding/grounding. See the opening sentence of Section 500.8(E). As far as CMP14 is concerned, five threads, wrench tight, is both necessary and sufficient. While the Section doesn?t specifically prohibit PTFE tape, it is assumed that it is prohibited via Section 110.3(B) since PTFE tapes aren?t listed for such purposes. Remember, the ??Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for untrained persons.? [Section 90.3(C)] CMP14 relies on that a lot or Articles 500-516 would be a LOT longer.
A little history: If you look at any recent NEC Handbook relating to what is now Section 501.30(B), you will see the external bonding jumper run ?parallel? both physically and electrically. That was a result of a mid-90?s comment to an NECH photograph that showed the bonding jumper wrapped a few turns around the LMFC; i.e., it wasn?t ?parallel? in some inspectors? opinion. I made a Proposal to say ?parallel? simply meant the bond was ?electrically connected at both ends? of the LMFC. IMO a few wraps actually protects the bonding jumper physically from snagging. CMP14 rejected it on the basis that those few turns would increase the bond?s impedance ? that?s how paranoid they are.
Make a Proposal (Public Input) for the 2017 NEC to allow PTFE tape and see how it would fly.