Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Welcome to the first issue of the Resource Innovation Institute (RII) Quarterly Resource
Benchmarking Report. The Resource Benchmarking Report is provided to RII members and
features energy and water-related insights extracted from our Cannabis PowerScore
aggregate database. We look forward to hearing your feedback and fielding any questions you
may have about the data and highlights provided in this report.
Derek Smith Gretchen Schimelpfenig, PE
Executive Director Technical Director
A variety of stakeholders are interested in understanding the energy and water usage rates
and impacts of cannabis cultivation, as well as controlled environment agriculture. Yet, data
remain scarce. The Resource Benchmarking Report is intended to serve as the definitive
source of benchmarking data to guide decision-making related to advancing resource
efficiency in cultivation environments. Each quarter, we provide RII members with insights and
analyses of the Ranked Data Set of records from our Cannabis PowerScore benchmarking
platform.
2
Cannabis PowerScore is the natural resource
benchmarking platform provided by
Resource Innovation Institute. The brief,
confidential survey empowers cultivators to
understand, track and improve their energy
and resource efficiency.
The tool provides useful insights to cultivators of THC and CBD, as well as any other crop
grown in a controlled environment. The aggregated PowerScore dataset features the largest
collection of analysis on controlled environment agricultural environments. It is cited by
governments, utilities and other stakeholders.
Resource Innovation Institute (RII) is an
independent non-profit organization whose
mission is to advance resource efficiency to
create a better agricultural future. Founded in
2016 in Portland, OR, USA, RII’s Board of
Directors includes the American Council for an
Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), a former board member of the US Green Building Council
and leading cannabis industry players. RII’s Technical Advisory Council is the leading multi-
disciplinary body assessing the environmental impacts and best practices associated with
controlled environment agriculture (CEA). In 2018, RII advised the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts on the establishment of the world’s first cannabis energy regulations, and it is
now advising Illinois, California, and other governments on CEA-related energy policies. RII’s
Efficient Yields cultivation workshops are the only grower-led, non-commercial venues for the
exchange of resource efficient cultivation best practices. RII is funded by utilities, foundations,
governments, cultivators, and leading members of the supply chain serving CEA.
3
The following sections are included in the first edition of this report, and will not be in future
issues. Going forward, the information in this Overview section will be included and updated
online on your PowerScore Dashboard (available to Tier 2 members and above) for your
ongoing reference. If you have questions about accessing your PowerScore Dashboard,
please reach out to our Technical Director, Gretchen, at [email protected].
Each Resource Benchmarking Report will convey efficiency insights about farms,
greenhouses, and indoor cultivation facilities across the Ranked Data Set of records from the
PowerScore database.
Each report will summarize key findings in two sections:
1. Cannabis Cultivation Benchmarks
o Performance metric ranges and comparative analysis of facilities by cultivation
method and flowering canopy area
2. Special Feature
o Unique analysis of a subset of the Ranked Data Set to dive deeper into the
strategies used to achieve high-performance cultivation facilities
PowerScore currently gathers information from growers about their electric energy usage. This
basic benchmarking platform will be called PowerScore Grow going forward.
The PowerScore resource benchmarking platform is being expanded in summer 2020 due in
part to funding from the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. By late June,
PowerScore will offer whole facility energy consumption from not only electricity, but also
natural gas, delivered fuels, renewable energy sources, and fuel for back-up generation
equipment. This enhanced benchmarking platform will be called PowerScore Pro going
forward.
In this first Resource Benchmarking Report, data from PowerScore Grow is summarized, and
therefore will only address electric energy impacts of cultivation facilities and their approaches.
4
In future Resource Benchmarking Reports, data from PowerScore Pro will be included, and
therefore will begin to address whole-facility energy impacts from all other fuel sources.
PowerScore performance metrics are described in units of both kilowatt-hours (kWh) and kBtu,
which equals 1,000 British thermal units (Btu).
1 kWh = 3.412 kBtu
The metrics used for this report are described using KPIs. These are metrics expressing
performance as a percentile relative to the Ranked Data Set of the PowerScore.
The metrics used for KPIs in this report describe the performance of farms, greenhouses, and
indoor cultivation facilities using the PowerScore Grow platform, which includes the impacts of
only electricity consumption.
PowerScore Grow Resource Impacts
• Electric Facility Efficiency: kWh/sq ft and kBtu/sq ft
• Electric Production Efficiency: g/kWh
• Electric HVAC Efficiency: kWh/sq ft
• Electric Lighting Efficiency: kWh/day
• Water Efficiency: gal/sq ft
• Waste Efficiency: lbs/sq ft
5
Future reports will use new metrics to describe the performance of farms, greenhouses, and
indoor cultivation facilities using the PowerScore Pro platform, which will include the impacts of
all energy sources.
PowerScore Pro Resource Impacts
• Facility Efficiency: kBtu/sq ft
• Production Efficiency: g/kBtu
• HVAC Efficiency: kBtu/sq ft
• Lighting Efficiency: kWh/day or kBtu/day
• Water Efficiency: gal/sq ft
• Waste Efficiency: lbs/sq ft
We have developed a list of terms and definitions related to PowerScore and have included a
summary of key benchmarking verbiage below. The glossary of these terms is available online
for your ongoing reference at https://powerscore.resourceinnovation.org/about-powerscore-
calculations.
Electric Facility Efficiency - Annual electric energy use per square foot, in units of
kWh/sq ft or kBtu/sq ft of flowering canopy. A lower value is better; a higher value is
worse.
Facility Efficiency - Total (all fuels) energy use per square foot, in units of kBtu/sq ft of
flowering canopy. A lower value is better; a higher value is worse.
Electric Production Efficiency - Efficiency of produced grams of dried cannabis flower
per kWh of electric energy use, using a facility’s annual production and electricity
consumption totals. A higher value is better; a lower value is worse.
Production Efficiency - Efficiency of produced grams of dried cannabis flower per kBtu
of total (all fuels) energy use using a facility’s annual production and whole-facility
energy consumption totals. A higher value is better; a lower value is worse.
Lighting Efficiency - Efficiency of electrical energy use from lighting equipment in units
of kWh per day. A lower value is better; a higher value is worse.
Electric HVAC Efficiency - Efficiency of electrical energy use from HVAC equipment in
units of kWh/sq ft from HVAC systems in units of kBtu/sq ft of flowering canopy. A lower
value is better; a higher value is worse.
6
Water Efficiency - Efficiency of water use in units of gallons/sq ft of flowering canopy. A
lower value is better; a higher value is worse.
Waste Efficiency - Efficiency of waste production in units of lbs/sq ft of flowering
canopy. A lower value is better; a higher value is worse.
In the later sections of this report, data from records of the PowerScore’s Ranked Data Set is
summarized using values and ranges of KPIs.
Data from PowerScore is voluntarily self-reported by cultivators. The Ranked Data Set of
existing PowerScore records is skewed to the West Coast, given the timeline of cannabis
legalization in the United States. For this reason, cultivation operations in the Ranked Data Set
contend with the milder, warmer climates of many states with the most mature regulated
markets.
This report uses average (mean) values in the analysis of the key metrics, rather than the
median. Given the relatively limited number of cultivators in the PowerScore Grow database
and the large distribution in the responses, the use of mean instead of median is intended to
address the possible influence of outliers. As the number of cultivators entering data into the
PowerScore platform increases, future reporting may use median values of the expanded data
set.
This report also uses ranges in the analysis of the key metrics, rather than relying on average
values alone. As the amount of data available for resource benchmarks in the PowerScore is
still relatively small, and as PowerScore’s sample of the market shows a wide variety in
performance and efficiency, it is important to look at the ranges of average values for a certain
metric by cultivation method, rather than looking at a specific average value for the metric.
On the PowerScore website, when you are logged in and viewing
reports on your Dashboard, you will see data displayed like the
figure at right. In this example, the KPI being described is Facility
Efficiency, the value is the average for that particular KPI, and the
number of records used to calculate the average is 88. The value
of the average is 709 kBtu/sq ft.
7
As a stakeholder-engaged non-profit organization, we invite peer review and we welcome your
input. Please direct your feedback and questions to Gretchen at
Upcoming Special Features could include analysis of the:
• Prevalence of different types of indoor growing environments
• Effects of vertical stacking strategies in indoor cultivation facilities
• Comparisons of facilities and their lighting and controls systems and performance
• Impacts of automated HVAC controls on controlled indoor environments
• KPI changes associated with economies of scale
• Participation by growers in utility incentive programs
• Volume of capital projects planned in the next 12 months for cannabis facilities
• Resource benchmarks of controlled environment agriculture facilities growing non-
cannabis crops
Analysis performed by professional service members of RII, and peer-reviewed by our
Technical Director, may also be included in future editions of the Quarterly Resource
Benchmarking Report. Please reach out to Gretchen at [email protected] with
collaborative ideas.
8
Above all else, RII respects the privacy of cannabis cultivators who have historically risked
legal action. No facility- or personally-identifiable data is ever shared with any party. Aggregate
PowerScore data is shared with governments and utilities with the express purpose of
advancing policies and programs that support cultivators in finding affordable solutions to
decrease resource impacts while improving profit. Individual PowerScore record data is only
shared with RII members in an anonymized fashion, like in the Special Feature section of this
report. Cultivators and business owners are encouraged to provide real data so they can get
reliable feedback on how their facility can be more efficient. This is an important component of
data integrity.
RII’s Technical Advisory Council (TAC) has played a critical and ongoing role in the design and
implementation of PowerScore. From agreement on key underlying metrics in 2017 to input on
improved HVAC analytics in 2019, RII’s TAC provides an invaluable peer-review and governing
structure over the aggregate data and findings.
In early 2018, as initial survey responses were being collected, it became clear that there was
some “noise” in the data, possibly because survey questions were inadequately asked or
misunderstood, or because wrong information was entered or because the system was
incorrectly calculating submitted numbers.
RII set out to assess how to improve the integrity of PowerScore data. Through in-kind support
from Energy Trust of Oregon, program delivery contractor Energy 350 provided anonymized
data from Energy Trust projects to be added the PowerScore dataset and recommended
utilizing a simple test called 1.5 inter quartile range (1.5 IQR) to flag and filter out bad incoming
data. This outlier analysis has since been automated within the software engine.
As The Cannabis Energy Report was being written throughout the summer of 2018, further
manual clean-up was performed on the existing data. In 2019, draft aggregate findings were
shared with RII Founders Circle members, resulting in identification of inconsistency in
reported Lighting Power Density (LPD). Given the lack of clarity in the marketplace around the
calculation of LPD, RII asked for volunteers from its Lighting and HVAC Working Groups to
9
evaluate submitted lighting data to determine if certain records should be set aside so they do
not compromise the aggregate findings. ERS and E Source performed the review and RII
accepted their recommendations on how to improve the quality of lighting performance data.
In 2020, PowerScore uses automated data checks throughout the survey to flag performance
metrics for potential inaccuracies based on values outside of a range deemed typical for
cannabis cultivation operations.
RII staff regularly reviews submitted PowerScore records for quality, and archives records that
are obviously tests or include ‘fake’ data used for evaluating the benchmarking platform.
Archived records are completely withheld from all reports.
RII staff also use a PowerScore Outliers report to check for submitted records that have
flagged performance metrics. If an individual record has one or more flagged performance
metrics, then RII staff reviews the record and checks the individual KPIs and the details
submitted for the record that contribute to the flagged metric(s). If a KPI is deemed suspect, its
box is unchecked, and that KPI is not factored into our PowerScore and quarterly resource
benchmarking reports.
A second QC process looks for outliers within the Ranked Dataset only. If certain KPIs are
flagged, RII staff re-opens the record detail summary to better understand how the facility is
set up according to the detailed data provided by survey selections. If RII staff can determine
a plausible explanation for the farm to be a legitimate/accurate/true outlier, the record is
retained in the Ranked Data Set; otherwise, the record is archived.
In 2020, RII is initiating a Data Working Group of its Technical Advisory Council to align with its
internal software upgrade process. The intent is to ensure an ongoing PowerScore evolution
that is in tune with market needs related to driving resource optimization of cultivation facilities.
10
This is a recurring part of the Resource Benchmarking Report that will be updated and
expanded to include the newest data each quarter.
The following sections highlight several KPIs and their ranges of values for various cultivation
methods. When evaluating resource impacts of cannabis cultivation, it is important to
understand that practices often vary dramatically from facility to facility. It is crucial to pay
attention to ranges in addition to averages of performance.
The units of kWh/sq ft and kBtu/sq ft are both used to express electric facility efficiency to
enable electricity load analysis as well as comparisons across fuel types. When multiplied by a
factor of 3.412, kWh/sq ft can be converted to kBtu/sq ft, which is the unit used to describe
Energy Use Intensity, a common energy metric used that is defined in the section below.
The average data described in the Electric Facility Efficiency and Electric Production Efficiency
sections below are summarized in Table 1. Average Electric Facility Efficiencies are provided
in both electric kBtu/sq ft as well as electric kWh/sq ft.
Table 1. Average Electric Facility & Production Efficiency Values by Cultivation
Approach
Indoor Greenhouse Outdoor
Average Electric Facility Efficiency (kBtu/sq ft) 709 314 17.5
Average Electric Facility Efficiency (kWh/sq ft) 208 92 5.1
Average Electric Production Efficiency (g/kWh) 1.9 7.1 63.2
Many researchers and industry professionals want to understand the energy use intensity (EUI)
of cannabis cultivation facilities, which is defined as annual total (all fuels) energy use in kBtu
divided by gross square footage (sq ft) of a building. However, the energy intensities of
11
cannabis grow operations cannot be compared to the EUIs of an office building or school.
These are agricultural and industrial facilities focused on production, and traditional EUI
calculations are not wholly appropriate. Additionally, the denominator of EUI is the square
footage of a whole building, whereas the majority of a cultivation operation’s energy use serves
the flowering plant canopy, not the total area of a facility.
Metrics for cannabis facility efficiency are still valuable to understand, but are also useful to
define using flowering canopy area and segment into bins by cultivation approach. By doing
so, the denominator (square feet of flowering canopy) reflects the production-oriented nature of
cannabis operations, and our analysis of Facility Efficiency compares spaces using similar
techniques.
The data in this section summarizes Electric Facility Efficiency in units of electric kBtu per
square foot; the lower the value, the better.
The graphs in this section describe Average Electric Facility Efficiency for indoor cultivation
facilities, greenhouses, and outdoor farms in kBtu/sq ft for five sizes of flowering canopy area:
• Smallest <5,000 square feet
• Smaller 5,000 - 10,000 square feet
• Medium-sized 10,000 - 30,000 square feet
• Larger 30,000 - 50,000 square feet
• Largest >50,000 square feet
The graph below shows the Average Electric Facility Efficiency of indoor and greenhouse
facilities on the X axis by size of cultivation operation on the Y axis, based on flowering canopy
area.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
<5,000 sq ft
5,000-10,000 sq ft
10,000-30,000 sq ft
30,000-50,000 sq ft
>50,000 sq ft
Electric Facility Efficiency, kBtu/sq ft
Flo
we
rin
g C
an
op
y A
rea
Electric Facility Efficiency
by Cultivation Approach & Flowering Canopy Area
Indoor Greenhouse
12
Indoor (88 records)
• Indoor cultivation facilities in the PowerScore database have the highest average values
for kBtu/sq ft; Average Indoor Electric Facility Efficiencies range from 543 to 761, with
an average of 709 kBtu/sq ft.
• Indoor cultivation facilities make up the largest subset of the PowerScore dataset, and
likewise have the tightest band of Electric Facility Efficiency averages.
o The smallest indoor facilities in PowerScore have an average electric EUI of 761,
and those with flowering canopy areas between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet
have an average electric EUI of 543.
o This suggests that larger indoor facilities can achieve 71% better Electric Facility
Efficiencies than the smallest indoor operations.
o The Average Electric Facility Efficiency for medium-sized facilities is based on
only three records, and therefore cannot be used to conclude any comparative
information for this quarterly report.
PowerScore Insight Indoor facilities have Average Electric Facility Efficiencies over 40 times more energy intensive
than outdoor farms and 2.3 times more energy intensive than greenhouses
in the PowerScore database.
13
The graph below shows the Average Electric Facility Efficiency of greenhouse facilities and
outdoor farms on the X axis by size of cultivation operation on the Y axis, based on flowering
canopy area.
Greenhouse (55 records)
• Greenhouses in the PowerScore database have the widest range of average kBtu/sq ft
values of any facility type in the database; Average Greenhouse Electric Facility
Efficiencies range from 2 to 612, with an average of 314 kBtu/sq ft.
• Greenhouses with smaller flowering canopy areas have 2.2 - 3.8 times the electric
energy intensity of the largest greenhouses in PowerScore.
PowerScore Insight
Smaller greenhouses in PowerScore are 2 to 4 times as electricity-intensive than
medium and large-sized greenhouses.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
<5,000 sq ft
5,000-10,000 sq ft
10,000-30,000 sq ft
30,000-50,000 sq ft
>50,000 sq ft
Electric Facility Efficiency, kBtu/sq ft
Flo
we
rin
g C
an
op
y A
rea
Electric Facility Efficiency
by Cultivation Approach & Flowering Canopy Area
Greenhouse Outdoor
14
Outdoor (13 records) • Outdoor farms in the PowerScore database have the lowest average values for kBtu/sq
ft; Average Outdoor Electric Facility Efficiencies range from 1.4 to 48.6, with an average
of 17.5 kBtu/sq ft.
PowerScore Insight
Large farms in PowerScore are more than 20 times more electrically energy efficient than
medium-sized outdoor farms.
15
Resource Innovation Institute provides you each quarter with a Special Feature, our unique
analyses of a subset of the Ranked Data Set to dive deeper into the strategies used to achieve
high-performance cultivation facilities.
For our first report, we take a look at several participants in Oregon’s
Cultivation Classic. The analyzed data includes farms, greenhouses,
and indoor cultivation facilities that have entered information into the
Cannabis PowerScore for Cultivation Classic for more than one year.
Cultivation Classic (CC) is the most scientifically rigorous competition for cannabis flower
grown in Oregon. The 2020 competition received 140 unique plant submissions from 52
licensed cannabis and hemp producers. The CC calculates winners in multiple categories
based on:
1. Overall enjoyment scores based on
double-blind reviews by a diverse panel of
200 judges
2. An in depth agricultural quality control
examination
3. Cultivation facility energy efficiency
performance metrics, as determined via
the RII PowerScore
Competing producers who complete the
PowerScore survey are rewarded with bonus
points applied to their overall CC score. Bonus
points are based on how their PowerScore stacks
up against grow facilities in their method of
cultivation.
An example of a Cultivation Classic poster is
shown at right, featuring the evaluated entry of the
strain called Blue Orchid; note the RII PowerScore
“GOOD” ranking in the bottom right corner.
16
Several outdoor farms, greenhouses, and indoor cultivation facilities have participated in the
Cultivation Classic for at least two years.
Multiple years of data allow us to provide you with comparisons of KPIs over time. In the
sections below, we analyze three cohorts of facilities and describe the potential contributing
factors to a facility’s improved (or worsened) efficiency metrics.
RII identified six producers whose performance increased Electric Facility Efficiency (kBtu/sq
ft) and Electric Production Efficiency (g/kWh) year over year. Evaluation resulted in the insights
described below.
The graph on the following page shows the Key Performance (KPIs) Indicators for each
cultivation operation on the Y axis, and describes the percent change in the KPI year over year
on the X axis. The “Overall Ranking” KPI is calculated using the weighted average of KPIs
represented as a percentile relative to the PowerScore Ranked Data Set, and is the
performance metric used by the Cultivation Classic.
• Indoor grower A1 improved their Electric Facility Efficiency by 92% between year one
and year two, and increased it a further 59% in their third year to 27.7 kBtu/sq ft for an
overall performance in the 97th percentile. In year one, fluorescent light fixtures were
being used for mother, clone, veg, and flowering rooms. In year two, they retrofitted to
LED light fixtures in all of their growing spaces. Their Electric Production Efficiencies
(g/kWh) also increased by 68% between year two and year three to 4.13 g/kWh.
• Indoor grower A2 improved their overall performance by 83%, with much of their
percentile increase due to a 43% improvement in Electric Facility Efficiency to 957
kBtu/sq ft. In year two, they added more fixtures to their veg area, balancing increased
lighting energy use with an overall decrease in facility electricity consumption. In the
Photo credit Sam Gehrke Photography
17
same time period they increased Electric Production Efficiency (g/kWh) by 76% to 0.15
g/kWh.
• Hybrid indoor & greenhouse grower A3 improved both Electric Facility and Electric
Production Efficiencies by 28% and 95% to 421 kBtu/sq ft and 0.30 g/kWh respectively.
While they increased the amount of lighting energy consumed by adding more fixtures,
in a phased approach they added LEDs in addition to fluorescent options.
• Greenhouse grower A4 improved their overall performance by 7%, with some part due
to a 47% improvement in Electric Facility Efficiency to 4.44 kBtu/sq ft. While they added
more fluorescent light fixtures in year two, in year three they reduced lighting electricity
use (kWh/day) by 9% while concurrently increasing Electric Production Efficiency
(g/kWh) by 214% to 10.7 g/kWh.
• Outdoor grower A5 operated a hybrid grow in year one, using fluorescent light fixtures
for several stages of plant growth. Switching from a renovated barn and greenhouse to
a completely sungrown operation improved Electric Facility Efficiency by 5% to 3.55
kBtu/sq ft, and increased Electric Production Efficiency by 14% to 12.1 g/kWh.
• Hybrid greenhouse & outdoor farm A6 improved several KPIs over the course of three
years as they moved to a completely sungrown operation with no need for electric
lighting for vegetating plants. Electric Facility Efficiency of 3.5 kBtu/sq ft is 31% higher
than year one, and Electric Production Efficiency of 5.84 kBtu/sq ft is 30% better.
-100% -50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%
Overall Ranking
Electric Facility Efficiency
Electric Production Efficiency
Electric HVAC Efficiency
Electric Lighting Efficiency
Percent Change Between Years
Cultivation Classic Facilities with
Improved KPIs Across Two Years
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6
18
RII identified one producer whose performance achieved a consistent overall performance
ranking year over year. Evaluation resulted in the insight below.
• Hybrid outdoor and greenhouse grower B1 maintained their overall performance
ranking of 75th percentile while improving their Electric Production Efficiency (g/kWh)
by 79% to 91st percentile to 7.25 g/kWh. This facility uses vertical stacking techniques
and automated environmental controls.
RII identified six producers whose performance varied year over year. Evaluation resulted in
the insights described below.
The two graphs on the following page show the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for each
cultivation operation on the Y axis, and describe the percent change year over year on the X
axis. The “Overall Ranking” KPI is calculated using the weighted average of KPIs represented
as a percentile relative to the PowerScore Ranked Data Set, and is the performance metric
used by the Cultivation Classic.
If a KPI for a grower did not change year over year, there is not a bar on the graph for that KPI,
as the percent change equals 0%. Note that on the second graph, facilities with three years of
data are shown twice; percent change between years one and two is shown with outlined bars,
percent change between years two and three is shown with solid bars.
• Indoor grower C1 had marked improvements in both Electric Lighting and Production
Efficiencies between years one and two, producing 279% more while using 28% less
total annual electricity at an Electric Production Efficiency of 0.10 g/kWh. However, in
the same year, Electric Facility Efficiency worsened by 73% to 987 kBtu/sq ft. In the
second year, they switched to using HVAC systems without enhanced dehumidification,
which increased HVAC electricity usage by 49%.
• Hybrid grower C2 reported an Electric Facility Efficiency of 241 kBtu/sq ft, 51% less
efficient than year one. In the same year, while total production increased by 63% to
0.27 g/kWh, their electricity usage also increased 51%.
• Hybrid greenhouse & outdoor farm C3 improved their overall performance by 88% due
to substantial improvements in Electric Facility and Lighting Efficiencies. While they
increased their number of harvests by 33%, they also reduced their annual production
total by 68% while total annual electricity use only decreased by 15%. Year two Electric
Facility Efficiency of 92.1 kBtu/sq ft is 26% better than year one but Electric Production
Efficiency of 0.81 g/kWh reduced by 63%.
19
• Outdoor farm C4 improved their Electric Facility Efficiency by 55% to 48.6 kBtu/sq ft but
saw a reduction in Electric Production Efficiency in year two, falling 71% to 1.01
g/kWh.
-100% -50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300%
Overall Ranking
Electric Facility Efficiency
Electric Production Efficiency
Electric HVAC Efficiency
Electric Lighting Efficiency
Percent Change Between Years
Cultivation Classic Facilities withVarying KPIs Across Two Years
C1 C2 C3 C4
-100% -50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200%
Overall Ranking
Electric Facility Efficiency
Electric Production Efficiency
Electric HVAC Efficiency
Electric Lighting Efficiency
Percent Change Between Years
Cultivation Classic Facilities with
Varying KPIs Across Three Years
C5 Year 1 - 2 C5 Year 2 - 3 C6 Year 1 - 2 C6 Year 2 - 3
20
Two Cultivation Classic grow operations have three years of data in PowerScore from which we
could analyze changes in performance metrics.
• Hybrid greenhouse & outdoor farm C5 improved several KPIs in their first year
increasing from one to two harvests a year, but all KPIs worsened in year two after
moving back to one annual harvest. Between year two and three, their number of
harvests decreased by 50%, but total electricity usage increased by 3%, and total
annual grams of production decreased by 58%. Returning to one harvest a year did not
result in year three efficiencies matching year one’s; Electric Facility Efficiency of 4.43
kBtu/sq ft is 13% worse, and Electric Production Efficiency of 3.84 g/kWh is 2% worse.
• Outdoor farm C6 improved Electric Facility Efficiency by 90% from years one to three to
3.56 kBtu/sq ft by moving to a completely sungrown operation. While Electric
Production Efficiency increased by 170% to 6.37 g/kWh between years one and two,
Electric Facility Efficiency slipped by 13% in year three.
RII identified one producer whose Electric Facility Efficiency and Electric Production Efficiency
both worsened over time. Evaluation resulted in the insights described below.
• Greenhouse grower D1’s Electric Facility Efficiency has worsened over three years by
nearly 400% to 405 kBtu/sq ft, and Electric Production Efficiency has decreased by
65% from 0.522 g/kWh to 0.181 g/kWh. More fluorescent lights were added to the
facility, increasing lighting power density from 6 to 15 W/sq ft.
21
Become an RII member to gain additional insights and expand your network. www.ResourceInnovation.org/JoinWithUs
Follow us and stay in touch on social media!
© Resource Innovation Institute 2020
