PES-22: Emergency Power
Facility security mechanisms exist to supply alternate power, capable of maintaining minimally-required operational capability, in the event of an extended loss of the primary power source.
Renumbered: Formerly PES-07.3 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization supply alternate power, capable of maintaining minimally-required operational capability, in the event of an extended loss of the primary power source?
General (20)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA Privacy Management Framework (PMF) | S7.2-POF6 |
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | A1.2 |
| COBIT 2019 | DSS01.04 |
| CSA CCM 4.1.0 | DCS-14 |
| GovRAMP | PE-11 PE-11(01) |
| GovRAMP Moderate | PE-11 |
| GovRAMP High | PE-11 PE-11(01) |
| IEC 62443-3-3 2013 | SR 7.5 |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 7.11 |
| ISO 27017 2015 | 11.2.2 |
| ISO 27018 2025 | 7.11 |
| MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 | PS-3.1 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | PE-11 PE-11(1) PE-11(2) |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | PE-11 PE-11(01) PE-11(02) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | PE-11 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | PE-11 PE-11(01) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | PE-11 PE-11(01) PE-11(02) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | PE-11 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | PE-11 PE-11(01) |
| NIST 800-160 Vol2 R1 | PE-11(01) PE-11(02) |
US (5)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | PE-11 |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | PE-11 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | PE-11 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | PE-11 PE-11(01) |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | PE-11 |
EMEA (7)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | PS-01.03B.8 PS-01.02AC PS-06.01B.2 PS-06.02B |
| EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 | mp.if.4 |
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 | 13.1.2(a) |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 2024 | 2704 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L1 2024 | 2704 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L2 2024 | 2704 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L3 2024 | 2704 |
APAC (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2026 | ISM-1123 |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 8.5.2(b) |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PES domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Physical security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Physical security controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards), focusing on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement appropriate physical security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's technology assets and data.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PES domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Physical security / facilities management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Physical security / facilities management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Physical security controls and technologies primarily focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A facilities management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of physical and environmental security operations (e.g., facility management solution, visitor log management automation and proximity badge access). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PES domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational physical security capability exists to supply alternate power, capable of maintaining minimally-required operational capability, in the event of an extended loss of the primary power source.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs). ▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review). ▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Assessment Objectives
- PES-22_A01 an uninterruptible power supply is provided to facilitate selected organization-defined values in the event of a primary power source loss.
- PES-22_A02 an alternate power supply provided for the system is activated upon organization-defined criteria.
- PES-22_A03 the alternate power supply provided for the system can maintain minimally required operational capability in the event of an extended loss of the primary power source.
Evidence Requirements
- E-PES-13 Emergency Power & Utility Protections
-
Documented evidence of emergency power, emergency shutoff, emergency lighting, voltage controls and redundant cabling.
Physical Security
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- UPS providing runtime for graceful shutdown of critical equipment
Small
- UPS for servers and network equipment
- Documented graceful shutdown procedure
Medium
- UPS with runtime for critical systems plus generator or cloud failover for extended outages
- UPS monitoring and battery testing
Large
- UPS with generator backup for data center and critical facilities
- Regular generator load testing
- Fuel supply agreements
Enterprise
- Enterprise power resilience (N+1 UPS, redundant generators, dual utility feeds)
- Scheduled generator testing and fuel management
- DCIM power monitoring