I think the problem is that the NYT article is doing a very bad job at summarizing the letter.
https://nadler.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ny_delegation_letter_on_nese_10.15.25.pdf
They are clearly laying out their climate concerns over the very first paragraphs! And they are going out of their way to emphasize how their “climate concerns” are LOCAL climate concerns, first and foremost. They’re concerned about seabeds, toxic substances, methane leakages, marine ecosystems, tourism, commercial fishing… you get the idea.
They are also talking about climate goals and stuff like that, but only in the last part of the letter. They put more emphasis on the argument that in their view, it’s not clear if there is a need for more gas given the flatlining demand over the last few years. In that case, the financial burden could be put on the taxpayers.
I think it’s fine to dismiss the local environmental concerns as run-of-the-mill NIMBYism, and all that stuff about climate goals is obviously not very substantiated, as you said. But I also think it’s important to be honest about what the letter is actually arguing. The NYT isn’t very honest about that, and neither are you.
(There is one good climate argument the letter actually doesn’t touch on, by the way: Lock-in effects due to long-term purchase agreements, artificially delaying the energy transition. That’s a problem Europe now has after hastily switching to LNG deliveries from the US due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.)