See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269300887

Establishing an assessment framework for energy sustainability in prisons:

The E-SEAP project

Conference Paper · May 2014

DOI: 10.1109/EEEIC.2014.6835861

CITATION READS

1 316

4 authors:

Georgios C Christoforidis Grigoris Papagiannis

University of Western Macedonia Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
109 PUBLICATIONS   737 CITATIONS    195 PUBLICATIONS   1,520 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mike Brain Tomislav Puksec

Severn Wye Energy Agency University of Zagreb
1 PUBLICATION   1 CITATION    74 PUBLICATIONS   578 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CoolHeating View project

EASY-RES: Enable Ancillary Services bY Renewable Energy Sources View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Georgios C Christoforidis on 30 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Establishing an assessment framework for energy
sustainability in prisons: The E-SEAP project

Georgios C. Christoforidis Grigoris K. Papagiannis Tomislav Puksec

Electrical Engineering
Department
TEI of Western Macedonia
Kozani, Greece
gchristo@teikoz.gr
School of Electrical &
Computer Engineering
Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki
Thessaloniki, Greece
grigoris@eng.auth.gr
Mike Brain Faculty of Mechanical
SevernWye Energy Agency Engineering.
Gloucester, UK University of Zagreb,
MikeB@severnwye.org.uk Zagreb, Croatia
Tomislav.puksec@fsb.hr

Abstract— Prison sites are a special type of public buildings or
facilities in general that are overlooked by policy makers. The
prison size and constant energy use results in excessive energy
consumptions, which implies that a focus on such sites is
necessary. Most authorities rather focus on the security aspects of
prison estates than their energy efficiency, and this is transferred
naturally to all members of the prison community, i.e. staff and
their families, prisoners and their families and wider community.
In this context, the European Sustainable Energy Award for
Prisons (E-seaP) is an Intelligent Energy Europe project that
deals with the sustainable energy behavior of prison sites in 8
European regions. The main goal is to devise an assessment
framework for energy sustainability in prisons using a holistic
approach, which takes into consideration not only the building
energy management but also the provision for education and
training and the wider community impact. This paper presents
the adopted assessment framework along with a comparison of
energy consumption in 17 prison sites in Europe. The assessment
procedure may be adapted for use also in other types of public
buildings.
Keywords-Public buildings, energy sustainability, energy
consumption
I. INTRODUCTION
The legislation framework of the European energy policy
has set public buildings on the spotlight. As a matter of fact,
the recast of the Energy Performance Building Directive [1]
regulates that all new public buildings (owned or occupied) in
Europe should be nearly zero-energy buildings after 31
December 2018. Several works have been published
illustrating the energy savings potential in public buildings [2-
4]. Most of these works focus on certain types of public
buildings, such as schools, kindergartens, universities, sport
centers or are focused on other types of public operated
services such as lighting [5]. However, the target set by the
recast of EPBD is currently difficult to reach, as the European
Commission recently identified that “too little progress has
been made by the Member States in their preparations towards
NZEBs by 2020” [6].
The regulatory background for all Member States’ activities
on energy efficiency in the building sector is represented by
several corresponding EU Directives [1, 7-10]. Requirements
of these Directives are transposed to National legislation,
however criteria, reference and target values are defined
individually. This means that common strategies, trends and
goals do exist, but there will be country specific paths towards
them.
Certain types of public buildings that are currently not in
the focus of policy makers and the scientific community may
aid Member States to achieve the set targets. Such buildings, or
in general facilities, are prisons. Prison sites should be
considered a special type of “public building” due to their
individual nature. They consume a great deal of energy because
of their size, building stock which may be old or designed to
comply basically with security standards and especially due to
their usage pattern which is continuous and ruled basically by
the security constraints. Prison facilities have to comply with
criteria from National legislation on energy efficiency of
buildings. Besides these more technical documents, Public
Procurement and particularly Green Public Procurement rules
have to be respected. In all cases the tasks which lay ahead of
the authorities and facility managers may be noticeably country
specific.
In this context, the European Sustainable Energy Award for
Prisons (E-seaP) project deals with the energy performance and
generally with the sustainable energy behavior of prison sites in
8 European Regions, under the Intelligent Energy Europe
Programme [11]. A total of 17 prisons are participating in the
pilot actions throughout Europe, The main goal is to establish
an assessment framework to recognize achievements in
improved energy sustainability in prisons, in the form of an
international award.
E-seaP tackles the problem of energy efficiency in prisons
by adopting a holistic approach embracing three elements,
namely the prison buildings and management, provision of
education and training, and outreach to prison communities
(offenders, families of offenders and staff). The aim is not only
to address technical and practical energy issues to achieve
energy savings but also to raise awareness, increase skills and
improve access to support. These actions are targeted at staff,
inmates, and their families through the provision of training,
accredited educational courses and access to advice services
and financial support for the domestic sector.
 This paper fills a gap existing in literature in dealing with
sustainable energy in prison facilities but also provides an
assessment framework that may be used for other public
buildings as well. In Section II the current situation of prison
sites in the EU is described, based on experiences gained out of
the pilot activities.
II. CURRENT SITUATION
Regarding prisons, every EU country has a common
problem of old building stock, high energy consumption and
associated costs. The prisons are tackling problems of lack of
capacity, of meeting the prescribed requirements and standards
in the prison system and at the same time complying with the
basic human rights of offenders.
In most cases there is a limited possibility for specific
actions , to improve the energy performance of of prison and
correctional facilities buildings, mainly due to the financial
crisis. Nevertheless, the increasing cost of energy and the need
to focus on cost-effective services, point to a real need to use
energy as efficiently as possible.
Generally, prison estates are not adequately equipped and
organized. For example, the role of the energy manager is still
unknown and in most establishments there is no energy
management at all. Although technical staff is always
available, mainly electricians, plumbers, etc., they are not
usually highly educated (low level staff). It is not uncommon
that sometimes such positions are covered by offenders and
they are low in number in most cases.
Prisons in EU face a series of common issues regarding the
energy management level. Most importantly, no energy
management or any formal delegation of responsibility for
energy consumption monitoring has been identified. This
certainly means that energy consumption is not monitored and
therefore not regularly controlled by the prison administration.
Without concrete knowledge of the energy consumption, the
lack of energy management strategy comes naturally. In
addition, prisons have to deal with limited or no investments
for increasing energy efficiency or implementing renewable
energy sources, possibly focusing on security aspects, while
they are rarely provided with enough information about
potential energy efficiency schemes. The pilot activities under
the E-SeaP project revealed also that energy efficiency is not
taken into consideration when implementing new products or
technologies. All the above coupled with old and not
adequately maintained infrastructures, the absence of any
motivation or incentives to take actions and generally the lack
of understanding about the long term strategic business
potential of investments to improve energy efficiency, make
the situation in prison buildings particularly challenging.
Inefficient building operation procedures also contribute to
higher prison utility bills, while staff is not engaged on the
benefits of energy efficiency and are not aware of their own
potential impact on energy consumption. Finally, to make
things worse, prison managers have in many cases no
empowerment to take decisions on changes and investments,
due to the central control of budgets and funding by the
governments and the corresponding Ministries.
III. PRISON ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK
The methodology for the assessment of prison sites is not
intended to be an advice giving tool, although the assessment
process is a learning one designed to be informative and
illustrative of what needs to happen to make progress for future
assessments. The scope of the assessment is to stress on
activities and practices that can lead to energy savings not
based on new investments but on adopting good practices and
through the behavioral change in the long term. The assessment
methodology was developed under close consultation with key
stakeholders in each country and after undertaking research to
have an excellent understanding of the country specific
national prison service and structure. Differences in
organizational structure of penal services, but more
importantly, similarities between EU countries were identified
so that the developed framework plays strongly to the
commonalities across Europe thus increasing its potential
transferability.
The assessment methodology aims to compliment
sustainable activities within the prison service, and only a
holistic approach has the potential to really support prisons in
their aim of meeting ongoing environmental objectives. In that
sense, prisons are assessed in three elements, as shown in
Fig.1, namely prison buildings and management, education and
training, and prison communities.
Figure 1. The three elements of the E-seaP assessment framework
A. Element 1: Building Management
The first pillar of the prison’s assessment is concerned with
the management of the building stock in terms of sustainable
energy. Although it may seem as the most important one, it
would be far less effective to deal with only the building’s
energy management without taking into account the bigger
picture.
In general, actions towards improving the energy
management of prisons are very straightforward. This element
assesses important aspects that affect energy sustainability
inside prisons. First of all, strategic energy management
activities are assessed that have an impact on the entire
organization. This means that the prison’s energy policy should
be clear, responsibilities should be assigned throughout the
organization and employees must be motivated to manage
energy.
 A further issue is whether prison estates have decided to
include energy efficiency criteria in their plans for future
investments. More importantly, tackling one of the main
problems identified, the energy performance should be
reviewed and reported to prison administration. Moreover, the
regular maintenance of equipment and plant leads to better
energy performance and thus constitutes another assessment
criterion.
This Element comprises 3 themes, namely Technical
Issues, Energy Management and Financial Management. Each
assessment matrix for the 3 themes has up to six rows, each of
which covers a certain topic related to energy management
performance. The columns, scored from 0-4, represent
increasingly sophisticated handling of these topics. In general
terms, the levels can be interpreted as follows.
Level 0 applies to sites where energy management is
virtually non-existent. There is no energy policy, no formal
delegation of energy management responsibilities, and there is
no program for promoting energy awareness within the
organization. Any equipment is unlikely to be energy efficient
or to include any energy efficiency features.
Level 1 generally indicates that, although there is no
specific energy policy, some energy management activities are
in place, albeit in a rudimentary or informal fashion. Reporting
procedures and awareness matters are undertaken on an ad-hoc
basis. Some plant and equipment will include energy efficient
features.
Level 2 suggests that the importance of energy
management is recognized at a senior management level, but
there is little active support for energy management activities.
Energy staff is likely to be based in a technical department, and
the effectiveness of energy management is restricted to the
interests of a limited number of employees. The majority of
plant and equipment will be energy efficient.
Level 3 indicates that energy management is treated
seriously at a senior level, and is incorporated within formal
management structures. Consumption is likely to be assigned
to cost centre budgets, and there will be an agreed system for
reporting energy consumption, promoting energy efficiency
and investing in energy efficiency. Plant and equipment
selection will be based on energy efficiency.
Level 4 is indicative of clear delegation of responsibility for
energy consumption throughout the organization. Energy
efficiency is regularly promoted both formally and informally.
A comprehensive monitoring system is in place, and
performance is closely monitored against targets. Plant and
equipment will be selected for energy efficiency and its
operation will be closely monitored.
As a guide to the impact of energy efficiency, each level
typically represents a change in consumption of 8-10%, or 30-
40% overall. Levels 3 and 4 will generally represent realistic
levels of best practice. Level 3 is likely to be appropriate for
smaller organizations, where level 4 would not be viable.
Larger organizations may find it appropriate to operate at level
4.
B. Element 2: Education and Training
The energy performance of prison estates are not only
dependent on the buildings themselves and the efficiency and
intelligence of their installations. The energy behavior of the
occupants (i.e. staff and inmates) is very important as well.
However, sustainable energy practice and behavior does not
come by itself especially since both staff and prisoners are not
well informed on the matter. In addition, the low level
technical staff lacks specific knowledge of energy efficiency
solutions and practices.
Therefore, education and training activities constitute a
crucial factor in improving the energy sustainability of prisons.
In particular, staff training to enhance knowledge and skills for
energy awareness and energy management should ideally
become embedded in the energy saving culture, improving
energy positive behavior and values. As an added value staff
should be trained on how to improve their energy saving
behavior at their own homes and then implement their changed
manners also at workplace. Training and education on energy
sustainability should be mandatory for energy management
staff, but also general staff should also access nformation
regarding this topic as a part of their regular training courses.
In parallel to these, engaging offenders is a big challenge. It
is known that formal education courses help prisons deliver on
key performance targets related to reducing reoffending.
Offenders can be motivated to engage with learning, gain
formal qualifications and have structured tasks to fill their time.
Studies have shown that accredited training and education
courses are very effective if they are linked to the development
of trade skills in encouraging sensitive attitudes to energy
saving, increasing awareness, knowledge and skills and
evoking innovative ideas for encouraging other offenders to
take interest.
The Education and Training Element comprises 3 themes
as well, quality of provision, leadership and management, and
outcomes. The assessment matrix for this theme has the same
structure as Element 1, described before.
The first theme looks at the quality of provision for both
staff and prisoners and criteria have been separated out to
reflect this. The theme investigates the nature of courses
delivered, the materials and resources that prisons have at their
disposal and how courses are evaluated and participants
assessed.
The second theme, leadership and management, looks at
how well work on education for intelligent/sustainable energy
use is supported by prison management. Clearly, this support
will prove crucial if these programs are to be a success.
Therefore, the assessment covers policy, resourcing,
progressive planning, the use of external partnerships and
crucially the extent to which a supportive culture is promoted
in terms of education for sustainability.
The third theme, outcomes, deals with the participation of
both staff and prisoners in education and training activities and
the outcomes that are evidenced out of such participation.
Signs and proof of improved energy behavior triggered by the
educational activities are assessed positively.
C. Element 3:Communities
The last Element of the assessment framework deals with
the impact a prison facility has on the wider community.
Families of both staff members and prisoners are obvious
targets, coupled with possible impacts of positive sustainable
energy good practices to the local geographical area of the
prison.
Families of offenders and prison staff should be targeted
through practical action for wider communities that provides
advice that will help these groups realize how the can save
energy in their own home. Often affected by low income
issues, especially offenders’ families are at certain risks for
energy poverty. Both these groups can be receptive to energy
saving advice that can potentially reduce their energy costs.
Thus, a prison working at the wider community level will be
able to raise awareness on how energy savings can be
accomplished and what are the practical benefits of this
activity.
Element 3 also address offenders upon their release.
National services in relation to offenders release need to have
strong links with voluntary agencies that give assistance and
support to offenders and their families while serving sentence
and help them prepare for life after prison. This includes advice
about their entitlement to state benefits, training, education,
work experience and preparation for release. The objective is to
help prisoners return to normal life, get a job and home, and
cope with life without re-offending. There are a number of
initiatives in EU countries that work towards this objective.
D. Assessment Scoring
The assessment methodology indicates that prison should
be assessed separately on the three Elements. The achieved
scores between 0-4 in each of the criteria of each theme of an
Element, constitutes the score of the prison in each Element.
The total score/achievement results from the addition of the
scores in each Element and can reach 72, 88 and 100 at
maximum for the three Elements respectively. The following
figure is illustrative.
Figure 2. Elements of E-seaP assessment with total scoring potential
IV. BASELINE CONSUMPTION ANALYSIS
From the technical point of view some data regarding the
energy consumption profiles in prisons are of main interest in
this paper. Prison sites face a mixed building stock and usage,
which makes their management challenging. As part of this
pilot action all participant prisons received full technical
energy surveys as well as their E-seaP assessment for the three
Elements. The results constitute the baseline consumption
patterns and may be utilized later as part of a benchmarking
procedure for prison buildings
A. Heating Types
The participant establishments mainly use gas to provide
heating and domestic hot water, while some establishments use
heating oil and there is one instance of a prison using both. It
should be particularly noted the absence of renewable energy
sources for heating and domestic hot water. Specifically, 11
prisons use gas, and 2 of them LPG. Oil is used by 4 prisons,
while one employs district heating additionally. Although the
payback period for solar water heaters can be only a couple of
years in most cases for southern Europe, prison managers
identified lack of proper communication with the Ministry and
inability to act autonomously.
B. Energy consumption and GHG emmisions
The annual energy consumption for both electricity and
heating for the baseline year of 2011 were collected from all
prisons. The real energy consumption was converted to
primary energy using suitable conversion factors applicable to
each country. Furthermore, using the online tool of the UK’s
Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
[12], the corresponding CO2 were obtained. The average
number of prisoners was also obtained from the prisons’
management, since it seems more appropriate to base the
primary energy consumption upon the number of prisoners a
facility has.
Fig.3 illustrates the differences in the specific energy
consumption per prisoner and year for participating countries
as the average value of the participating prisons.
Figure 3. Average consumption per prison occupancy in participating
countries
 What this chart fails to illustrate though, is the level of All participant prisons received technical energy surveys at
services a certain facility offers to inmates. For instance, the the start of the project which have been reviewed to identify the
low level of consumption per prisoner observed in Greece may most common recommendations, the highest of which is a need
be partly attributed to better climatic conditions during colder for staff awareness and lighting upgrades. Table I lists the 5
months. However, the energy surveys revealed other factors most recommended actions in participant prisons.
that contribute significantly to these results. Firstly, the average
number of prisoners in one of the Greek prisons was constantly TABLE I. FREQUENCY OF TOP 5 RECOMMENDATIONS ACROSS THE 17
above the maximum capacity, indicating poor services to PARTICIPATING PRISONS
prisoners. Moreover, due to the severe financial crisis that
Frequency % recommendation
Greece faced in that year, cuts in public spending did not allow Top 5 Recommendations recommendation from participant
prison managers to provide prisoners with the necessary prisons
comfort (i.e. cuts in oil spending for heating and hot water). Awareness 15 93.75%
Fig. 4 shows the corresponding to the CO2 emissions per Lighting 9 56.25%
prisoner per year in each country. Comparing the results of
Fig.3 to those of Fig.4, a picture on the synthesis of the total Insulation 9 56.25%
consumption for the prisons of each country is formed. For Monitoring 7 43.75%
example, Malta with a comparatively low consumption within
the participating countries has a disproportionately high level Procurement Policy 6 37.50%
of emissions. Examination of the detailed consumption data
reveals greater electricity consumption per capita compared to
other prisons. This together with a high emissions factor for C. Baseline Prisons Assessment
electricity (10% greater than Greece and 40% higher than Using the assessment framework detailed in Section III, all
others) leads to the specific result. Quite an opposite situation participating prisons were initially assessed in order to provide
exists in Croatia, where a relatively small conversion factor for for the baseline assessment, i.e. the starting line. Specifically,
electrical consumption, together with a higher consumption of Fig.5 shows the assessment results for each theme in the
gas accounts for their seemingly disproportionate emissions in Buildings Management Element. Compared with the other
regard to one of the highest energy consumptions. elements, the average score of 51% of the total available is
considered high. It is clear that technical issues are the most
attended to in prisons to date with a 57% attainment on this
theme around 10% greater than the other 2 themes. This is in
keeping with a common practice of relying on the technical fix
for efficiencies without attending to the process and
management of the site as a whole and highlights the
importance of having wider themes in the E-seaP that support
the building of an improved general ethos and awareness to
energy saving.

Figure 4. Average CO2 emissions (t of CO2) per prison occupancy in

participating countries

Such examples are indications of the big number of

variables affecting the analysis of the consumption at a
European level. Energy savings definitely result in a reduction
of the corresponding emissions, however if the carbon footprint
is of interest, even other options, as fuel change, can result in
significant improvements. This is one of the reasons that the Figure 5. Average scoring of participating prisons for Element 1:Building
Management as percentage of the total scoring potential in each theme.
selected assessment procedure under E-seaP has been decided
not to be based on specific requirements for reductions
Fig. 6 illustrates the average assessment score of the
compared with some benchmarks, but on actual every day
participating prisons for the second Element, i.e. Education and
changes in the behavior that can have multiplicative results on
Training. Overall with a score of 23% the participating prisons
the long term.
are at a low level indicating the challenge that this element
It is interesting to note that in total the participant prisons presents for such establishments. The ‘Quality of Provision’
contribute a significant 25845 tonnes of CO2 per year (>93000 theme sees the greatest baseline success but this is largely
MWh) emphasizing the need for action in this sector. because prisons generally are equipped to deliver education
and training courses and therefore basic teaching equipment
and record keeping systems are in place. However, prisons fail
to achieve more as learning with direct relevance to sustainable
energy is not in place. This same issue also applies to the other
two themes in this element.
Figure 6. Average scoring of participating prisons for Element 2: Education
& Training as percentage of the total scoring potential in each theme.
Finally, Fig. 7 collects the assessment scores for the third
E-seaP Element related to Communities. As it may be easily
observed, this is the element with the greatest challenges for
prisons, achieving an overall percentage of just 9% of available
scores. Some encouragement exists in that there is evidence of
internal communication routes and some established links to
the communities.
Figure 7. Average scoring of prisons for Element 3: Communities as
percentage of the total scoring potential in each theme
V. CONCLUSIONS
Due to various financial and operational problems and
limitations, as described in this paper, the current practice in
prison buildings is mostly limited to fulfilling only the
minimum legal requirements of the existing energy
performance of buildings Directives. Prisons have neither
financial nor human resources to become actively engaged in
more advanced activities. This highlights the potential for E-
seaP to raise the level of positive energy action through its
View publication stats
wider approach of seeking to reward a variety of actions that
are not solely tied to the need to accomplish certain energy
savings. It is commonly accepted that if an increased awareness
and level of associated activity can be achieved the way is
paved for consideration of bigger steps towards energy saving
and sustainability. E-seaP, therefore, has a crucial role and its
transferability beyond the pilot countries is a critical
consideration.
Much has already been done in its design and early
development to ensure that the E-seaP methodology is based
on the actual situations of a very diverse range of institutions.
This diversity enriches the E-seaP action but at the same time
places limitations on an international roll out. The final
business case and strategy will have to address these issues and
consider how networks of support in new participant countries
can be established.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The funding of this work under the E-SEAP project in the
frame of the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme is greatly
acknowledged. The authors are solely responsible for the
results presented in this paper, which do not represent the
Community
REFERENCES
[1] European Union, “On the Energy Performance of Buildings. Directive
2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (recast)”,
Official Journal of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium, May
2010.
[2] L.P. Lombard, O. Jose and P. Christine, “A review on buildings energy
consumption information”, Energy and Buildings, vol. 40, no. 3, pp.
394-398, 2008.
[3] International Energy Agency (IEA), “Technology Roadmap Energy-
efficient Buildings: Heating and Cooling Equipment”, IEA:Paris,
France, May 2011.
[4] E.G. Dascalaki, V.G. Sermpetzoglou, “Energy performance and indoor
environmental quality in Hellenic schools”, Energy Build, 43 (2011), pp.
718–727.
[5] Daniele Fiaschi, Romeo Bandinelli, Silvia Conti, “A case study for
energy issues of public buildings and utilities in a small municipality:
Investigation of possible improvements and integration with
renewables”, Applied Energy, Vol. 97, Sept. 2012, pp. 101–114.
[6] COM(2013), 483, Progress by Member States towards Nearly Zero-
Energy Building, Brussels, 7/10/2013.
[7] Construction Products Directive (“CPD”; 89/106/EEC)
[8] Directive on energy end-use efficiency and energy services (“ESD-
Services Directive“; 2006/32/EC)
[9] Directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources
(“RES Directive”; 2009/28/EC)
[10] Directive establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign
requirements for energy-related products (“Eco-Design Directive”;
2009/125/EC).
[11] European Sustainable Energy Award for Prisons (E-SEAP), available at:
http://e-seap.eu/
[12] DEFRA, Greenhouse Gas Conversion Factor Repository, available at:
http://www.ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart.co.uk/