We undertake an analysis of regulatory consistency using a database of publicly available regulatory decisions in Australia. We propose a simple exploratory model which allows us to test for regulatory consistency across jurisdictions and industries without detailed knowledge of the regulatory process. We compare two measures using our approach—the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) and the proportion of firms' revenue requirement claims disallowed by the regulator. Our comparison suggests that the WACC is a very poor measure of regulatory consistency. Moreover, our empirical results may be interpreted as indicating that a range of measures ought to be considered when assessing regulatory consistency. Our results also provide an empirical foundation for theoretical modeling of regulatory processes. (JEL L51)