Tales from the Field: The Hidden Risk in OT and BESS Environments
Australia’s Energy Transformation Is Moving Fast
Australia’s transition toward renewable energy is accelerating. Across the country, organisations are investing heavily in wind, solar, and Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) to support growing energy demand and long-term sustainability objectives.
Over the past 18 months, we have worked with and spoken to multiple organisations operating across this sector. Many are either still in construction or transitioning sites into operational readiness.
What we have found is that a consistent pattern is emerging.
While significant attention is paid to delivering projects on time and within budget, the Operational Technology (OT) environments underpinning these facilities are often treated as construction deliverables rather than as long-term operational assets.
It is this disconnect that creates real risk!
The Challenge No One is Talking About
During the build phase, OT environments are commonly designed and deployed by contractors focused on achieving commissioning milestones and controlling construction costs.
The outcome is often infrastructure designed to satisfy immediate project requirements, but not necessarily the operational, cyber, or compliance demands that are sure to follow once the site is handed over.
This is not isolated to one organisation or one project. It is a recurring issue appearing across both newly commissioned and established sites operating at varying levels of maturity.
What we commonly see includes:- Limited futureproofing and lifecycle planning
- Inconsistent technology standards across sites
- Hardware being selected based on cost rather than operational resilience
- Minimal cybersecurity consideration during the design
- Limited visibility and monitoring capability built into the design
- Compliance requirements are being addressed late in the process – essentially being treated as an afterthought
At first glance, these environments appear functional. The reality, however, often paints a different picture.
What This Looks Like in Practice
Once sites move into operational ownership, the technical and operational shortcomings become more visible.
We frequently encounter:
-
Infrastructure not designed for operational
demand
Firewalls without appropriate licensing, undersized switching environments, low-grade storage platforms, and server infrastructure designed more for office environments than critical operations. -
Poorly optimised OT and SCADA environments
Systems implemented during construction are often not tuned to align with vendor best practices or operational requirements, creating unnecessary traffic, noise, and inefficiency. -
Fragmented security and visibility
Standalone tools operating independently, limited telemetry sharing, and multiple monitoring platforms requiring separate investigation workflows. -
Inconsistent segmentation and network design
Limited alignment with recognised OT security models such as Purdue, creating increased exposure and reduced traffic control. -
Blind spots created by third-party access
OEM involvement and contractor-managed environments can reduce operational visibility and introduce unmanaged remote access risk. -
Undefined operational and SOC workflows
Limited clarity around incident detection, escalation, response ownership, and remediation pathways. -
Basic disaster recovery capability
Backup arrangements often reliant on manual processes or individual knowledge rather than engineered resilience. -
Limited governance and project coordination
Technology decisions occurring across multiple vendors and contractors without clear operational ownership or lifecycle accountability.
None of these issues may appear catastrophic on their own. Collectively, however, they create operational fragility.
The Real Business Impact
This is not simply an engineering problem. It very quickly becomes a business problem. When OT environments are not designed for long-term operations, the impact extends well beyond technology teams.
Organisations experience:- Higher operational overheads
- Increased outage risk
- Reduced visibility during incidents
- Slower response and recovery times
- Difficulty demonstrating regulatory compliance
- Increased operational stress and workforce fatigue
- Reduced confidence in technology reliability
- Greater exposure to reputational damage
Operations teams often end up inheriting environments they did not design, which are not fit for purpose, and that they must manage reactively.
Instead of focusing on optimisation, forecasting, and planned maintenance, teams become absorbed in keeping systems running and managing continual instability.
That comes at a cost!
The Hidden Cost of Short-Term Thinking
Perhaps the most overlooked consequence is financial. Cost savings achieved during construction frequently reappear later as operational expenditure.
We regularly see organisations needing to reinvest significantly post-handover to stabilise environments, remediate design shortcomings, and uplift cyber and compliance capability.
In some cases, these remediation costs can be two to three times higher than the original investment required to build correctly in the first place.
This can include:- Hardware replacement and redesign
- Network and security remediation
- Additional professional services
- Increased outage exposure
- Compliance uplift programs
- Operational disruption and downtime risk
- Potential contractual penalties
Short-term savings often become long-term liabilities!
Regulatory Expectations Are Increasing
The regulatory environment is also changing.
Organisations operating critical infrastructure increasingly face expectations aligned to:
- SOCI obligations
- AEMO AESCSF requirements
- Demonstrable cyber governance
- Evidence-based security reporting
- Defined operational and incident management capability
Compliance is no longer simply about policy documentation. It requires operational evidence. That evidence is difficult to produce when environments lack visibility, consistency, and governance.
What Good Looks Like
The organisations achieving the strongest outcomes take a different approach.
They engage early. They treat OT, cybersecurity, and operational resilience as part of the design process rather than as post-construction remediation.
What does this mean? What does this mean?Designing for longevity - Infrastructure with sufficient capacity, resilience, and lifecycle planning from day one.
Building scalable, repeatable environments - Architectures capable of supporting future sites and evolving operational requirements.
Creating unified visibility - Integrated monitoring and telemetry across OT, IT, and network environments.
Implementing secure access models - Role-based access with strong authentication, auditability, and session recording.
Establishing a defined SOC operating model - Clear ownership from detection through remediation and closure.
Supporting evidence-based compliance - Reporting and operational governance aligned to regulatory frameworks.
What is important to understand is that there is no cookie-cutter approach to OT environments. Every facility, operational requirement, and risk profile is different.
However, while no two environments are identical, common principles consistently apply. Organisations that design and govern OT with a long-term operational mindset rather than a short-term project mindset almost always achieve stronger security, greater resilience, and better business outcomes.
The Key Takeaway
The conversation is no longer simply about technology pricing or vendor selection. Consideration must be given to protecting long-term operational viability.
The most successful organisations are moving beyond project completion as the definition of success and focusing instead on sustainability, resilience, cyber readiness, and lifecycle value.
Because ultimately, an OT environment should not merely survive commissioning. It should remain secure, stable, compliant, and operationally effective for the next decade and beyond.