The beach on Beach Lane in Wainscott, the planned site...

The beach on Beach Lane in Wainscott, the planned site of a cable landing for the South Fork Wind Farm. Credit: Newsday/Mark Harrington

Dave Kapell tries to assuage Wainscott that running an electric cable through a residential neighborhood is just like the conduit run through Greenport [“Opposition can’t be allowed to set regional energy goals,” Opinion, Feb. 16].

Except he neglects to mention that the 13kV electric line run from Greenport to Shelter Island is less than 1/10th the power of the high-voltage transmission cable that Orsted proposes to run throughout Wainscott. The Greenport-Shelter Island conduit — similar to common overhead LIPA distribution lines — was such a small project that it was planned to be completed within three weeks in Greenport.

Kapell’s argument is nearly as deceitful as East Hampton Supervisor Peter van Scoyoc, who bizarrely compared building the massive infrastructure needed for New York State’s first offshore wind farm to running common water mains throughout the bucolic hamlet.

Kapell provided even more proof to support the contention of Citizens for the Preservation of Wainscott that bureaucratic incompetence and corporate indifference have driven Orsted’s desire to land the cable in Wainscott rather than good corporate values, community partnership and merits. The good news is that the facts show there are less-impactful and better landfall alternatives than Wainscott.

Mitch Solomon,





Comparing the planned South Fork Wind Farm to the Chernobyl disaster is fearmongering at its worst. Yet that is exactly what Wainscott residents Pam Mahoney and Jonathan Stern did in their opinion piece [“Vanity push to be the first a reckless way to set policy,” Feb. 16].

Their NIMBY-driven presentation disparages Orsted, the renowned Denmark-based company that built the first and largest offshore wind farm and ignores the fact that clean energy is the most desirable way to meet the growing daily electricity needs on Long Island without building yet another fossil fuel plant.

South Fork Wind Farm’s turbine energy project will produce enough electricity to power some 70,000 homes, will be the largest source of renewable energy on the Island, and will be a forceful weapon against climate change and rising sea levels.

Wind farms have proven to be safe and would generate jobs and other community benefits all year-round. We can’t afford to pass up this chance.

Cate Rogers,

East Hampton



In their opinion piece, Pam Mahoney and Jonathan Stern seem angry that the cable connection to the mainland will be in Wainscott, which they describe as a “residential and farming community.” Here’s a news flash: electric cables exist through many communities across Long Island. That is how our electric power is transported.

The authors neglect to point out the need for the South Fork Wind Farm is driven by the increasing energy demand from residential communities, farming and businesses throughout the South Fork. Lights, charging cellphones and computers, double-door refrigerators, giant-screen TVs, pool heaters, and operating hotels, restaurants, bakeries and other businesses all require energy. This increased demand could be met with building another fossil fuel power plant or a wind farm. The choice was clear, especially for a community that has embraced 100% renewable energy goals.

Let’s stop the misinformation and fearmongering. We can no longer live in ignorance regarding the source of our electric power. That willful ignorance is taking a toll on the sustainability of our planet.

Adrienne Esposito,



Editor’s note: The writer is executive director of the Farmingdale-based Citizens Campaign for the Environment.


Unlimited Digital AccessOnly 25¢for 5 months