Reducing process loads of all types should be a LEED insentive credit wize, but is often pushed back due to the difficalties documenting the exceptions to ASHRAE 90.1 Appx. G for differing baseline / design case process loads. The LEED requirement to have process loads at minimum 25% also makes credit achievement more difficalt as measured energy gains are restricted to only non-process loads. The idea behind excluding them in the first place was that "process loads" are "unregulated" which I believe is a nice way of saying that they are often highly variable and a best guess input...but many process energies can be very carefully measured. Data exists for many and MOST importantly, many buildings have process loads that nowhere near reflects 25%!

For example, sportsfields use HDTV Floodlighting systems that require minimum 2500 lux illumination levels. This is very specialized lighting, where spectral intensity is often regulated by bodies like FIFA. Good lighting design and expensive lights can often save as much as 10% energy. Because of the Mega Watt range of the energy consumption of floodlighting, this is in my opinion a process load, a function of the sports arena, and constitutes as much as 1/9th of the electric load on an event day.

This reflects itself in NC - EAp2 and EAc1. As a process load this must be the same for baseline and design case, but can be different when accurately and quantifiably documented and supported.

That being said, the metal content and life of the lights is also an important factor not accounted for in NC and could be brought in from EBOM.

The aim should be to give credit where credit is due and at the same time not discourage potential stradegies for saving energy. If certain stradegies cannot translate into LEED credits due to ASHRAE restrictions, then perhaps they should translate into LEED credits elsewhere in the system.