Connecticut may become a ghost town if lawmakers fail to address affordability concerns — and the warning signs are becoming harder to ignore.
A new AARP survey of residents aged 45 and older shows deep concern about rising living costs. Respondents cited housing, utilities, and medical care as major financial pressures, fueling broader worries about long-term financial security and the ability to afford retirement in Connecticut.
The numbers are sobering: 72% of respondents say they are concerned about the cost-of-living, up from 66% in 2023; more than half worry about being able to retire in Connecticut; and 33% report difficulty affording healthcare.
Those anxieties are translating into real financial strain. Nearly half say they have tapped into savings to cover rising costs. Forty-two percent have stopped saving for retirement altogether. Thirty-six percent struggle with monthly bills. Thirty percent have difficulty affording food. Thirteen percent report skipping medications due to cost.
These are not marginal concerns. They represent warning signals from a key demographic in one of the nation’s oldest states. Connecticut’s median age is 41.2, the seventh highest in the country. Meanwhile, the 35-to-49 age group declined by 13.1 percent between 2010 and 2022 — more than any other age group.
Older residents are increasingly relocating to states such as North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Texas. The reasons are familiar: lower taxes, lower housing costs, and lower energy bills.
Despite a relatively high average annual income, Connecticut residents face some of the highest property taxes, income taxes, and corporate taxes in the country. At the same time, the state struggles with elevated housing costs and some of the highest utility rates nationwide. For retirees, the financial math often simply doesn’t work.
In the AARP survey, 92% of respondents agreed that the state government should prioritize utility rate and regulatory changes. That is telling.
Energy policy illustrates the broader challenge. Over the past several decades, Connecticut has adopted increasingly ambitious renewable energy mandates, including Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). This measure severely restricts utilities’ ability to find the cleanest and most efficient means of providing electricity. While environmental goals are important, restricting utilities’ energy sourcing options has contributed to higher costs.
The Public Benefits Charge, a state-imposed fee on electric bills that funds various renewable energy programs, has become another driver of high rates. When policy costs are layered onto utility bills, households feel it immediately.
Connecticut’s long-term emissions goals are ambitious. But energy policy must balance environmental objectives with cost and reliability. In Alternatives to New England’s Affordability Crisis, a coalition study of New England’s energy market found that a more diversified portfolio, including nuclear and natural gas, could significantly lower costs while maintaining reliability and reducing emissions.
The General Assembly is currently considering a bill to establish a workforce that would advance nuclear energy technologies. That is a conversation worth having. Energy decisions that improve affordability and reliability would directly address the concerns raised in the AARP survey.
Affordability, however, extends beyond energy. Government spending and taxation play a central role in everyday costs. When taxes and regulatory burdens increase, those costs ripple outward — affecting housing prices, transportation costs, and grocery bills.
Even proposals framed as targeting large corporations can affect consumers. For example, H.B. 5156, would impose retroactive costs on fossil-fuel producers. Industry groups estimate it could raise gasoline prices by nearly 33 cents per gallon. For families already struggling with food and medical bills, even incremental increases matter.
Gov. Ned Lamont has spoken about the need for growth and reform to strengthen Connecticut’s future. Growth, however, requires a competitive cost structure.
If lawmakers truly believe affordability is the top issue this session, structural reform, not temporary rebates, is required. That means reassessing the tax and regulatory environment that drives costs higher.
Connecticut’s affordability challenge is not inevitable. It is the cumulative result of policy choices. If those choices are not revisited, the state will continue to lose residents, particularly those in their prime earning years and those approaching retirement, to more affordable alternatives.
The survey results are not just statistics. They are signals. Lawmakers would be wise to take them seriously.
