That would bring out an interesting point. The radiant power amounts required for matching equi-energy white using a usual set of CIE primaries (R=700, G=546.1, B=435. would be in the ratio R:G:B = 72.1:1.4:1, which in photometric units of luminance would be in the ratio of R:G:B = 1:4.6:0.06. Hence, to match 74.5 watts of equi-energy white one would require 72.1 watts of red, 1.4 watts of green, and 1 watt of blue. Most of the contribution in wattage is coming from Red, i.e., 72.1 watts. Therefore, perhaps, one can make a statement that at least in this case the wattage of equi-energy white is close to a certain red as opposed to some green.

Hmmm - could you rephrase that last statement? I'm not following what it means, "the wattage is close to a certain red." Red is a sensation, so I don't follow what you mean by watts being close to a certain red.

This particular choice of red primary is far down the sensitivity curve of even the long wavelength cones, and therefore lots of watts are needed to get a long-wavelength cone stimulus equal to that of the equi-energy white source. Using lots of power for this deep red primary does not imply that the color being reproduced is subjectively "close" to that primary. Another color that is "closer," for example a shade of pink, will require even more watts of this red primary to match it. In other words, with this choice of primaries, the 72.1 is just a scaling factor required because you are so far down the slope of the cone response. In the published chromaticity diagrams, these power factors of 72.1, 1.4, and 1 are divided out so that the amounts of the primaries can be stated as R=1, G=1, and B=1 for the match to equi-energy white. If the red wavelength is moved to something shorter and more reasonably up on the long cone sensitivity curve, these ratios are different and much less extreme.