It's a rare day on Capitol Hill when you get agreement on an energy-environment issue from just about everybody _ manufacturers, the Obama administration, Republicans, Democrats _ but it happened this morning on Home Star. That's the administration's plan to give cash incentives to homeowners who want to fix up their houses to save energy (see a McClatchy story about Home Star here). Those who spoke at the hearing called Home Star a winner _ good for the economy, because people will have more money to spend if they save on energy bills, and because ratepayers won't have to pay for as many new power plants; but also good for the environment and energy independence. (For the main points of what was said at the hearing, see the testimony of the invited speakers here.)

Cathy Zoi, the assistant energy secretary for efficiency and renewables, said there are 130 million homes in America, and very few of them are as energy efficient as they could be. "Let's make it easier for Americans to prevent their hard-earned cash from flying out of leaky and inefficient homes," she said.

Republicans on the committee generally agreed. "I'm for 'all of the above' (a reference to the Republican plan on energy, including renewables, coal, oil and gas and nuclear) which includes energy conservation," declared Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan. He spoke as members of the subcommittee made comments before hearing from former Michigan Republican Gov. John Engler, the head of the National Association of Manufactuers, and other industry officials who supported the Obama administration plan.

Rep. John Shimkus, Republican of Illinois _ asked how the government would pay for it without running up the deficit. Engler responded that with unemployment at double digits, it was a good idea to go ahead with retrofits promotion to get people who make and install the products back to work, because then they're also paying taxes.

At the end of the morning-long hearing, Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, joked with subcommittee chairman, Democrat Ed Markey about how for once people usually opposed to each other agreed on something. "No one on this committee, no matter what side of the dais they sit on, could make a coherent argument that they're in favor of wasting energy," Burgess said.