The law of standing to intervene in administrative proceedings has long been something of a stepchild of the law of standing to be heard in court. The recent decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Envirocare of Utah, Inc. v. NRC may, however, have brought administrative standing out of the shadow of its more prominent relation. Envirocare makes the following contributions to the law governing standing to intervene in agency proceedings. First, the court upheld the agency's denial of intervention standing to a company whose economic interests would be adversely affected by the agency's decision to issue a license to a competitor. Second, the court upheld the agency's position that it may deny standing to intervene even if the party in question would later qualify for standing on judicial review of the agency's decision. Third, in reaching its decision, the court deferred to the agency's view of the scope of the hearing provision in its organic statute. The net result of Envirocare is a substantial expansion of agency authority to control intervention in agency proceedings. It is important to emphasize, however, what Envirocare did not decide. This is not a decision about standing to be heard in court. Although much of the reasoning is similar to that employed in judicial consideration of the "zone of interests" prong of standing, the court did not apply that test. To the contrary, the court assumed that the company petitioning to intervene met the zone of interests test, but held that the test does not apply to intervention in administrative proceedings. Thus, the Envirocare decision would not provide support for a decision that a party did not have standing to challenge an agency action in court. As discussed below, Envirocare sits astride two current lines of analysis concerning agency authority. In strengthening agencies' control of their own proceedings, the decision speaks to concerns about dilatory tactics and undue delays hampering agency ability to pursue the statutory missions. To that extent, the decision may enhance agency ability to serve the public interest as determined by Congress. On the other hand, the prospect of judicial deference to agency intervention decisions threatens to allow agencies to turn a deaf ear to views the agencies should have to consider, and thus to undermine the legitimacy of agency decisions.