Ann: CPV Major Milestone - First Commercial Demonstrator Project, page-79

At $3 million for a green house covering 4.3 hectares
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-04/farmers-grow-crops-in-greenhouses-prevent-climate-change-effects/8321720
If the farmers can save money by generating electricity via the glass...and become less dependant on the grid by using batteries....then yes they will do it.
The cost benefit analysis will no doubt be complicated to work out.
But in South Australia Wesfarmers spent $200 million on a green house with solar electricity generating capacity in the same project.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-01/sundrop-farms-opens-solar-greenhouse-using-no-fresh-water/7892866

http://2015.sustainability.wesfarmers.com.au/case-studies/environment/coles-enters-10-year-contract-for-tomatoes-powered-by-sun-and-seawater/

No doubt Wesfarmers did a cost benefit analysis on putting solar panels in and figured it was worth it.
If CPV glass had been available would they have used it?
I believe they would have used CPV glass as it is a double use of the land to use solar generating glass with the plants growing underneath.
As it is, Wesfarmers had to put the solar panels on land next to the green houses, rather than using that land for growing plants with solar glass on top.