The article mentions...

"“The higher costs for producing green hydrogen without any subsidies or incentives means it will continue to be challenging to decarbonize hard-to-abate sectors, such as chemicals and oil refining, with hydrogen produced via electrolysis powered by renewables,” said BNEF analyst Payal Kaur."

...and also states...

" In the US, billions of dollars of projects have been stalled waiting for President Joe Biden’s administration to issue final rules for a tax credit meant to spur production."

However, those final rules have been finalized and publicly announced, and the major subsidies and incentives for the production of Green Hydrogen are now available.

https://www.bakerbotts.com/Thought-Leadership/Publications/2024/December/Final-Regulations-Issued-Regarding-Section-48-Investment-Tax-Credit

Edit to add:

There is also this new development in U.S. support for the Hydrogen industry start up...

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/articles/us-department-energy-unveils-updated-hydrogen-program-plan

From the article:

Just another fossil fuel industry-prompted hit piece at worst.

Economic laws are, at the end of the day, subject to the more important laws of physics. One cannot make energy cheaper by wasting it.

The hydrogen bros/sock puppets/fossil fuel greenwashers here and elsewhere are simply members of a long line of energy fools stretching back to the badly educated moron Amory Lovins. Hydrogen Energy has a long history of going nowhere and as of now is nowhere and it won't go anywhere. There is well known data on how much CO₂ is generated to make hydrogen and it's ugly and as clear as day. The Potemkin "green" hydrogen is simply a marketing ploy and comes out of the fossil fuel companies' marketing budget rather like "sequestration."

...and as you know, Green Hydrogen doesn't emit CO2 in either it's production or use.

Consider the steps in your energy system and apply basic thermodynamics.

Both batteries and hydrogen serve as energy carriers. Batteries are significantly more efficient, around 90%, while electrolysis is maybe 75% efficient, but energy stored in a battery is vastly more useful than energy stored in hydrogen for most purposes.

There may be niche applications where hydrogen makes sense, but the best use of "green" electricity is to use it directly rather than store it. if you must store the energy, pumped storage works best where available. Unless and until we have an energy system where all demand for electricity is fully met by "green" sources, any diversion to low-efficiency storage is intrinsically wasteful.

(I'm deliberately being vague about what "green" means in this context, as you may use whatever definition you please and the conclusions are the same.)

...and that batteries, Hydrogen, gravity, etc, as storage mediums will also have their best uses.

We are nowhere near that goal yet, and any progress on the build-out of any and all of these technologies is imperative, and certainly couldn't be considered a "diversion".

Only two markets — China and India — are likely to see green hydrogen become cost-competitive, according to BNEF. There, the cleaner fuel will reach a comparable price to gray hydrogen by 2040.