I have yet to actually see one of these fixtures - and I'm the guy who proposed the change allowing them!
So why did I make the proposal? Well, I had two motives.
The first was that I saw a need for the code to allow for changing technology. That is, a new product existed, was safe, and yet was not allowed by the NEC. I could also see a similar issue arise, were someone to use fiber optics, the way they are in some pool lighting.
The second was a bit more abstract. Simply put, I believe that rules ought to tell you the end result, and not get involved in telling you how to achieve that result, or what materials to use. In some ways, I believe the NEC gets too involved in tiny details - which then leads to all manner of word games.
For example, prior code specified clearances for incandescent and fluorescent fixtures .... implying, by omission, that no other means of providing light was allowed. I'm sure that was not the intent; for a very long time, those were your only means. Even limiting ourselves to those means, a debate arises if you put a fluorescent lamp ("CFL") in a fixture that was intended to hold an incandescent bulb.
I wanted the code to emphasize the legitimate issue of a hot lamp igniting loose fabric. Heck, I can ignite a code compliant closet simply by placing a 'heat lamp' in a fixture. It seemed absurd for the code toallow me to create a hazard, but not allow me to eliminate one.
As to whether the illuminated clothes rods provide 'adequate' light, that's not for me to decide. I've seen far too many closets that are large enough to qualify as habitable rooms, with all manner of decorative or accent lighting. Some I've seen even have art displayed on the walls! I had already seen evidence of the illuminated hanger rods being actually used, so someone found them attractive. Besides, the NEC does not require ANY light in closets, let alone 'adequate' lighting.
