We Energies has run into some headwinds in its bid to build the biggest wind farm in the state.

The Glacier Hills Wind Park project in Columbia County would consist of 90 turbines rising at least 400 feet above corn fields near the village of Friesland, northeast of Madison.

The Milwaukee utility proposed the project, its second large wind farm, as part of an expansion of renewable energy to comply with a state law that passed with bipartisan support in 2006. The law calls for wind turbines and other renewable energy systems to power 10% of the state's electricity by 2015.

But this project has stirred more organized opposition than the utility's first big wind project in Fond du Lac County.

Glacier Hills is being challenged by a fellow wind power developer and a property rights group concerned about the impact of turbines on nearby property owners.

Raising financial concerns about the project, pegged to cost up to $364 million to $435 million, is Invenergy LLC of Chicago.

The company is the developer of the Forward Wind Energy Center in Dodge and Fond du Lac counties, and it says it could build a project in Brown County that would generate as much power as Glacier Hills but be less costly for We Energies ratepayers.

Though exact cost estimates for the Invenergy proposal are confidential, Invenergy claims its proposal could save We Energies customers $50 million or more over 30 years, compared with the We Energies plan.

Invenergy has proposed a wind farm called Ledge Wind south of Green Bay. "The construction cost of Ledge Wind will be borne by Invenergy's shareholders and will not be borne by (utility) ratepayers, as would be the case with Glacier Hills," said Mike Leaman of Invenergy.

We Energies says its project is cost-effective over the long-term, and it noted that it ran into a series of delays with its first wind farm, Blue Sky Green Field, first proposed in 2004, when the original developer of that project failed to complete the wind farm and ending up selling it to the Milwaukee company.

In addition, Andy Hesselbach, the Glacier Hills project manager for We Energies, noted that Invenergy has not yet submitted a detailed application for its project, meaning it could not be built as quickly as Glacier Hills.

"Invenergy's project is substantially behind Glacier Hills from a permitting standpoint. As a result, there is substantially more uncertainty as to whether their project even will receive the permits and approvals that will be required to construct and operate the project," Hesselbach said.

But the Citizens' Utility Board, a customer watchdog group, said a dramatic drop in sales of electricity means the project isn't needed to meet demand for electricity and should be delayed. The group also says the commission should weigh whether the Invenergy proposal is more cost-effective for customers.

Meanwhile, the Coalition for Wisconsin Environmental Stewardship, or CWEST, has hired consultants to investigate noise generated by wind turbines, to ensure that the project's turbines won't be built too close to surrounding homes.

Wind power is a coveted energy source for many because it generates no emissions linked to global warming, and once a wind farm is built, there are no fuel costs.

But concerns have been raised by residents who live near wind farms about turbine noise, shadow flicker effects from the rotating blades, and problems with television reception.

CWEST members also spoke out against a wind farm siting standards bill that Gov. Jim Doyle recently signed into law. Gerry Meyer of Brownsville submitted a diary to the commission describing how he and his family have lost sleep since the turbines began operating near his house after the Forward wind center opened last year.

"My son suffers from sleeplessness and headaches. He has described his headaches this way: 'It feels like my head is spinning 100 miles an hour.' He sleeps with one or two radios on to cover up the turbine noise," Meyer said.

Wind project developers say their structures comply with noise standards, but CWEST contends the standards are too lax.

Michael Vickerman, executive director of the renewable energy advocacy group Renew Wisconsin, suggested that state regulators authorize the payment of $500 to $750 a year to nearby property owners as "good neighbor payments."

Hesselbach, of We Energies, said the company is amenable to the idea, and he said it has agreed to provide payments to land owners within one-third a mile of a turbine.

But Hesselbach said he's concerned about proposals to move turbines farther from people's homes, given the need for Wisconsin to add more renewable power to comply with the state's renewable portfolio standard.

If "the sound or setback standards are modified in any material way, it is unlikely that this project will be developed, and moreover that any large-scale wind project will be built by any entity in the future in the state of Wisconsin," Hesselbach said. "The only option to utilize wind generation would be to develop projects in other states."

The case underscores the challenge Wisconsin is facing as it seeks to expand renewable energy. Advocates for economic development say wind power can create jobs and help reduce the state's carbon footprint. But Wisconsin's winds don't blow as strongly as those of Iowa and Minnesota, where several other state utilities have gone for their wind power expansion plan.

If Wisconsin ends up buying all its wind power from projects in other states, that could in turn drive a need for more power lines. Studies of several new projects are under way, and American Transmission Co. said that plans for power lines to import wind power would increase the budget of its 10-year expansion plan, now valued at $2.5 billion.