Provision Data Systems Inc. · Data centers in Kelowna (Canada) · V1Y9X1
Two data centers at the same rent do not cost you the same, and the gap appears on no quotation: it comes from the energy the building consumes on top of your servers, to cool and power them. PUE sums that overhead up in a single figure, and that figure ends up on your bill.
A 3 kVA rack powered continuously draws 23,652 kWh a year for your servers alone. Here is what the site consumes in total, depending on its efficiency.
| Site efficiency (PUE) | Total consumption | Cost of electricity |
|---|---|---|
| 1.15 — highly efficient site | 27,200 kWh | local price not referenced |
| 1.50 — typical current-generation site | 35,478 kWh | local price not referenced |
| 1.90 — energy-hungry site | 44,939 kWh | local price not referenced |
At identical IT load, the gap between the most and the least efficient site reaches 17,739 kWh a year for a single rack. We do not hold a referenced industrial electricity price for this country, so we do not convert it: multiply that gap by your own contract’s kWh price.
This site does not publish its PUE, as is the case for nearly the whole market: the value is therefore not estimated here, it is named as missing. The exact question to ask, in writing, before signing:
What is your PUE measured over the last twelve months, at which metering point, and is energy rebilled at actual consumption with the PUE applied, or at a flat rate?
The three answers decide your bill: the value states efficiency, the period states whether it is measured or promised, and the rebilling mode states whether it concerns you at all. On a flat rate the PUE is already in the price; on actual consumption it multiplies your kWh.
The two thresholds used above (1.15 and 1.90) come from the A to G efficiency scheme the European Union will make mandatory in August 2027 for its data centers above 500 kW. That scheme does not apply here, but it is becoming the reference grid: it is how European buyers will read any site, wherever it stands.
A calculation, not a bill. The amounts above are the cost of the electricity consumed: it is not the rate this site will charge you, which also covers the power chain, its maintenance and the service. Basis: 3 kVA at power factor 0.9, i.e. 2.7 kW over 8,760 hours. Model version 2026.09-v1. You operate this site? Claim this listing to publish your measured PUE: it is the argument your competitors do not publish.
The country's electricity weighs 191 g of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (2025), against 458 g for the world average and 210 g for the European Union average. It comes 52.8% from hydro.
A 3 kVA rack at a PUE of 1.5 draws 35,478 kWh a year, i.e. 6.8 tonnes of CO2. This site does not publish its PUE, so the calculation uses 1.5, the benchmark for a current-generation site: an order of magnitude, not a measurement of this building. The same rack on a world-average grid would emit 16.2 tonnes. The gap does not come from the building, it comes from the country: it is the line no price list shows and every carbon report asks for.
Source: Ember / Energy Institute via Our World in Data, retrieved 2026-09-14. A direct renewable purchase agreement would change this balance: that is for the operator to declare.
No earthquake of magnitude 5 or above has been recorded within 200 km of this site since 1970. This record covers 56 years: short on a seismic timescale, where return periods run into centuries. No recorded earthquake does not mean no hazard, and this record does not replace the statutory zoning, which alone binds construction. The question to put to the operator is a different one: was the building designed for the zone it sits in, and to which standard?
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, ANSS ComCat, retrieved 2026-09-14. Computed from this building's coordinates.
An availability figure is an outage budget, not a promise of no outage. Here is what each level actually allows, in minutes per year.
| Level | Target availability | Allowed outage per year |
|---|---|---|
| Tier I | 99.671 % | 1,728 minutes, i.e. 28.8 hours |
| Tier II | 99.741 % | 1,362 minutes, i.e. 22.7 hours |
| Tier III | 99.982 % | 96 minutes, i.e. 1.6 hours |
| Tier IV | 99.995 % | 24 minutes, i.e. 0.4 hours |
Availability and restore-time guarantees do not measure the same thing, and you will be sold both. The rate is a yearly budget of outage minutes. The restore-time guarantee is the maximum delay to fix one incident. A site at 99.99% that takes eight hours to restore still meets its yearly rate and costs you a full day: the budget holds, your business does not. Ask for both figures, and above all ask what the guarantee covers — power alone, or cooling and the network link too.
This site publishes neither its contractual availability nor its compensation terms, so neither is estimated here. The four questions to ask in writing, before signing: which rate is guaranteed in the contract (not targeted by design); what restore-time guarantee, and over which scope; what compensation cap, as a share of one month’s fee; and is the credit paid automatically or only on your claim, within what deadline. That last one decides everything: a generous cap is worthless if the claim is never filed.
A reference, not a commitment. The rates per level above come from the data center classification framework, not from a promise by this site; only the contract you sign prevails. Outage budget computed over 8,760 hours. Model version 2026.08-v1. You operate this site? Claim this listing to publish your actual commitment: clear terms sell better than silence.
None of these appear on a quote, and most are discovered on the first site visit. They are what actually drives the running cost of a rack: an engineer turned away at reception, a parcel not accepted or a cross-connect delivered in three weeks all cost more than a discount on rent.
Ask before you sign (16 items) :
These are declarative and only the operator can publish them. You operate this site? Claim this listing, every answer above is a selling point your competitors do not publish.
Compare and request a quote — Provisiondata →