Cummins Inc. has terminated its electrolyzer operations, abandoning a business segment that executives projected would generate $400 million in annual revenue by 2025. The Columbus-based manufacturer cited deteriorating market conditions driven by federal policy reversals under the Trump administration, marking one of the most visible corporate retreats from green hydrogen infrastructure in the United States.
The decision represents a sharp pivot from Cummins’ 2020 strategic positioning, when the company held a dedicated “Hydrogen Day” event forecasting electrolyzers as “a fast-growing and increasingly important part of our business.” That optimism materialized briefly under Biden-era incentives, including the Inflation Reduction Act’s tax credits that enabled Cummins to relocate electrolyzer manufacturing from overseas facilities to domestic production. Former President Biden highlighted this transition during a 2022 Minnesota facility visit, framing it as proof of industrial policy success.
The Trump administration has since reversed course on clean energy funding, with the Energy Department reviewing or canceling over $83 billion in loans for clean technologies approved during the previous administration, according to The New York Times reporting. The administration’s domestic policy legislation further reduced tax incentives specifically targeting green hydrogen production, eliminating financial mechanisms that made large-scale electrolyzer deployment economically viable.
Chair and CEO Jennifer Rumsey confirmed the strategic withdrawal during Thursday’s analyst calls, stating that policy changes caused green hydrogen demand to “dry up” and become “dramatically lower.” While Cummins will honor existing customer commitments, the company has halted all future commercial activity in the segment, though Rumsey emphasized continued commitment to what she termed a “multi-solution strategy” for zero-emissions technologies.
The electrolyzer market depends on producing hydrogen through renewable electricity, splitting water molecules into constituent elements, a process yielding only water vapor as a combustion byproduct. This contrasts with conventional hydrogen extraction from natural gas, which generates carbon dioxide emissions. Industry proponents have positioned green hydrogen as essential for decarbonizing sectors where electrification faces technical limitations, including heavy trucking, steelmaking, and maritime transport.
Gabriel Filippelli, executive director of Indiana University’s Environmental Resilience Institute, attributes Cummins’ exit to policy uncertainty rather than technological limitations. He notes hydrogen infrastructure remains in early development stages compared to mature wind and solar deployment, requiring integrated systems for production, transport, and end-use conversion. Unlike renewable electricity that can be directly integrated into existing grids, hydrogen demands parallel infrastructure investment, creating what Cummins officials have previously characterized as “a fundamental chicken-and-egg problem.”
Steven Mohler, assistant professor of management at IU Columbus, questions what catalysts might revive hydrogen momentum absent federal support. The technology’s appeal lies in high energy density, enabling continuous operation independent of weather conditions, unlike intermittent solar and wind resources. However, achieving commercial scale requires coordinated infrastructure development that private capital has proven reluctant to finance without public incentives.
The broader implications extend beyond a single manufacturer’s strategic repositioning. Cummins’ withdrawal signals how rapidly shifting federal energy policy can destabilize emerging technology markets, particularly those requiring long development timelines and substantial capital investment. For regions like Columbus hosting these operations, the reversal translates into concrete economic impacts as companies reallocate resources toward technologies aligned with current policy frameworks rather than potential future environmental regulations.
The green hydrogen sector now faces questions about whether market forces alone can sustain development trajectories that recent federal support had accelerated, or whether the technology will remain dormant until policy priorities shift again.
