A Friday afternoon news release from Topeka told of a new wrinkle in the ongoing competition for the highly prized National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF).

The federal government has asked Kansas and the other states vying for the new Department of Homeland Security laboratory to commit to building a power plant for the $450 million facility.

According to Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, “They want a totally self-sustained operation.”

This request seems to come out of left field; nothing such as this had been mentioned publicly prior to last week. Six states are in the finals, having beaten out a number of other proposals.

Kansans think they have an ideal location, and those pushing the site on the Kansas State University campus have said they think Kansas has a great chance IF the final selection is based solely on the merits of the site. However, Kansas boosters are wise enough to realize that, if raw partisan politics gets into the picture, other states, particularly Mississippi, may be able to muster greater political clout.

But now there is a new factor introduced into the competition. If Homeland Security people knew they wanted a self-sustained power supply, they should have made this known at the time various states were making their bids.

Why make this announcement at this time? Do any of the finalists have power plants that could be dedicated 100 percent to the NBAF facility? Federal officials have specified that the electrical plant must be gas-powered. What does such a plant add to the cost of the site?

This new requirement, unless some site already has a stand-alone power plant, is sure to delay the opening of any new facility. Does Plum Island, N.Y., which is the current home of NBAF, have an independent power plant, and, if so, does this new announcement make it more likely federal officials will decide to update the Plum Island operation rather than build a new facility at a different site?

This late announcement raises many new questions and puts an added financial burden on any state seeking to remain in the selection process. It is understood some key Kansas legislators now are working on a possible source for paying for a new power plant.

It will be interesting to learn the projected costs if Kansas should decide to build a new power plant adjacent to the KSU site. Would it be possible to switch the Kansas proposal to a site adjacent to Fort Leavenworth, which competed against Manhattan and KSU? Does Leavenworth have an independent power plant that could supply an NBAF?

This latest requirement should cause many to wonder just how many unknown features still are to be identified and how these surprise requirements might favor one site over another. Sounds like the political games are just beginning.