Ontario Advances Environmental Review for Roadhouse Energy Project

Ontario is moving forward with an environmental review of a proposed energy-storage project and related land-use development in southwest Ontario, giving agencies and residents a formal opportunity to weigh issues before any later project approvals.

The City of Ontario is the lead agency preparing a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Roadhouse Energy Storage Project and the related Rich Haven Specific Plan. The project site is generally bounded by Eucalyptus Avenue, Walker Avenue and Campus Avenue.

The environmental review is a significant step in the city’s consideration of the proposal, but it is not a final approval. The approved project record does not say that Roadhouse is approved, under construction or operational.

Public review began in May

The city’s Notice of Preparation started a public-review period that ran from May 22 through June 22, 2026. That notice formally initiated preparation of the subsequent environmental-impact report and identified Ontario as the lead agency.

Ontario also held a scoping meeting on June 8, 2026, at the Ontario Police Department, 2500 S. Archibald Avenue, Ontario, CA 91761. Scoping allows agencies and members of the public to identify subjects they believe should be addressed in the environmental analysis.

The project is associated with several planning and development files: PSPA26-005, PDA-24-003, PDEV24-015, PCUP24-016 and PTUP26-041. The review also covers the Rich Haven Specific Plan, linking the proposed energy-storage facility to a broader land-use proposal.

Issues the report will study

The planned environmental analysis covers aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse-gas emissions, hydrology, noise, transportation and wildfire risk.

That list describes the subjects the report is expected to examine. It does not establish that the project will cause any of those impacts, nor does it provide a final finding about whether the proposal can proceed.

For residents and public agencies, the review creates a documented process for examining how the proposed facility and related development could interact with the surrounding area. Transportation, air quality, water-related conditions, noise and wildfire risk are among the topics that could affect how the proposal is evaluated. The packet does not provide findings on those issues yet.

What remains unresolved

The sources confirm the environmental-review process and its public-comment dates, but they do not establish whether the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was released after the June 22 comment deadline.

The record also does not state the project’s final energy-storage capacity, investment value or construction schedule. It does not establish the proposal’s ultimate approval status.

The available materials do not guarantee that the project will receive a future public hearing or City Council vote. Any such step would need to be confirmed by a later official agenda or project record.

For now, the confirmed development is the city’s formal environmental review. The process gives agencies and the public an opportunity to shape or challenge the analysis before later decisions, while leaving the project’s final outcome unresolved.