Skip to main content
Log in

Auction design for the allocation of carbon emission allowances to supply chains via multi-agent-based model and Q-learning

  • Published:
Computational and Applied Mathematics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To increase competition, control price, and decrease inefficiency in the carbon allowance auction market, limitations on bidding price and volume can be set. With limitations, participants have the same cap bidding price and volume. While without the limitations, participants have different values per unit of carbon allowance; therefore, some participants may be strong and the other week. Due to the impact of these limitations on the auction, this paper tries to compare the uniform and discriminatory pricing in a carbon allowance auction with and without the limitations utilizing a multi-agent-based model consisting of the government and supply chains. The government determines the supply chains' initial allowances. The supply chains compete in the carbon auction market and determine their bidding strategies based on the Q-learning algorithm. Then they optimize their tactical and operational decisions. They can also trade their carbon allowances in a carbon trading market in which price is free determined according to carbon supply and demand. Results show that without the limitations, the carbon price in the uniform pricing is less than or equal to the discriminatory pricing method. At the same time, there are no differences between them in the case with limitations. Overall, the auction reduces the profit of the supply chains. This negative effect is less in uniform than discriminatory pricing in the case without the limitations. Nevertheless, the strong supply chains make huge profits from the auction when mitigation rate is high.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdallah T, Farhat A, Diabat A, Kennedy S (2012) Green supply chains with carbon trading and environmental sourcing: Formulation and life cycle assessment. Appl Math Model 36:4271–4285

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Anand R, Aggarwal D, Kumar V (2017) A comparative analysis of optimization solvers. J Stat Manag Syst 20:623–635

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrew AM (1999) REINFORCEMENT LEARNING: AN INTRODUCTION. Robotica 17:229–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel LM, Schwartz J (1999) The Ascending Auction Paradox Univ Maryl 5:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Back K, F.zender, J., (1993) Auction of Divisible Goods On the Rational for the Treasury Experiment. Rev Financ Stud 6:733–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjaafar S, Li Y, Daskin M (2012) Carbon footprint and the management of supply chains: insights from simple models. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 10:99–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bower J, Bunn D (2001) Experimental analysis of the efficiency of uniform-price versus discriminatory auctions in England and Wales electricity market. J Econ Dyn Control 25:561–592

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner M, Galai D, Sade O (2009) Sovereign debt auctions: Uniform or discriminatory? J Monet Econ 56:267–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burtraw D, Goeree J, Holt CA, Myers E, Palmer K, Shobe W (2009) Collusion in auctions for emission permits: An experimental analysis. J Policy Anal Manag 28:672–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty A (2002) Optimal price ceilings in a common value auction. Econ Bull 3:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang X, Xia H, Zhu H, Fan T, Zhao H (2015) Production decisions in a hybrid manufacturing-remanufacturing system with carbon cap and trade mechanism. Int J Prod Econ 162:160–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cong R-G, Wei Y-M (2010) Auction design for the allocation of carbon emission allowances: Uniform or discriminatory price? Int J Energy Environ 1:533–546

    Google Scholar 

  • Cong RG, Wei YM (2012) Experimental comparison of impact of auction format on carbon allowance market. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16:4148–4156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramton, P., 2008. Report on key design elements of auctions under Australia’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

  • Cramton P (1998) Ascending auctions. Eur Econ Rev 42:745–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramton P, Kerr S (2002) Tradable carbon permits auctions: How and why to auction not grandfather. Energy Policy 30:333–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damianov DS, Becker JG (2010) Auctions with variable supply: Uniform price versus discriminatory. Eur Econ Rev 54:571–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehghanian, F., Mansour, S., 2008. A framework for moving toward sustainable supply chain management. 38th Int. Conf. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2008 2, 1059–1066.

  • Dormady NC (2014) Carbon auctions, energy markets & market power: An experimental analysis. Energy Econ 44:468–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du S, Hu L, Song M (2016) Production optimization considering environmental performance and preference in the cap-and-trade system. J Clean Prod 112:1600–1607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du S, Ma F, Fu Z, Zhu L, Zhang J (2015) Game-theoretic analysis for an emission-dependent supply chain in a ‘cap-and-trade’ system. Ann Oper Res 228:135–149

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Duke JM, Messer KD, Lynch L (2017) The Effect of Information on Discriminatory-Price and Uniform-Price Reverse Auction Efficiency: An Experimental Economics Study of the Purchase of Ecosystem Services. Strateg Behav Environ 7:41–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eliaz K, Offerman T, Schotter A (2008) Creating competition out of thin air: An experimental study of right-to-choose auctions. Games Econ Behav 62:383–416

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Esmaeili Avval, A., Dehghanian, F., Pirayesh, M., 2021. The comparison of pricing methods in the carbon auction market via multi-agent Q-learning. RAIRO Rech. Opérationnelle 1767.

  • Forster, M., La Torre, D., Lambert, P., 2013. On a fundamental property of Talman-Yang’s Auction under Price Control. University of York.

  • Giarola S, Shah N, Bezzo F (2012) A comprehensive approach to the design of ethanol supply chains including carbon trading effects. Bioresour Technol 107:175–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gode DK, Sunder S (2004) Double auction dynamics: Structural effects of non-binding price controls. J Econ Dyn Control 28:1707–1731

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Goeree JK, Offerman T, Sloof R (2013) Demand reduction and preemptive bidding in multi-unit license. Exp Econ 16:52–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldreich, D., 2007. Underpricing in discriminatory and uniform-price treasury auctions. J. Financ. Quant. Anal.

  • Greaves, B.B., 1982. Free Market Economics: A Basic Reader. Foundation for Economic Education.

  • Güth W, Ivanova-Stenzel R, Wolfstetter E (2005) Bidding behavior in asymmetric auctions: An experimental study. Eur Econ Rev 49:1891–1913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haita C (2014) Endogenous market power in an emissions trading scheme with auctioning. Resour Energy Econ 37:253–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattori, T., Takahashi, S., 2020. Discriminatory versus uniform auction: evidence from JGB Market. available SSRN. Hattori, Takahiro and Takahashi, Shogo, Discriminatory Versus Uniform Auction: Evidence From JGB Market (August 10, 2020). Available at SSRN:

  • Haw-Jan W, Dunn SC (1995) Environmentally responsible logistics systems. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 25:20–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong Z, Chu C, Zhang LL, Yu Y (2017) Optimizing an emission trading scheme for local governments: A Stackelberg game model and hybrid algorithm. Int J Prod Econ 193:172–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hortaçsu A, McAdams D (2010) Mechanism choice and strategic bidding in divisible good auctions: An empirical analysis of the turkish treasury auction market. J Polit Econ 118:833–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hua G, Cheng TCE, Wang S (2011) Managing carbon footprints in inventory management. Int J Prod Econ 132:178–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, R., 2000. Analysis of uniform and discriminatory price auctions in restructured electricity markets, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

  • Huynh TN, Do DTT, Lee J (2021) Q-Learning-based parameter control in differential evolution for structural optimization. Appl Soft Comput 107:107464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ILOG, 1987. IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimization Studio: CPLEX 12.7 User’s Manual 1987–2018

  • Isaac RM, Plott CR (1981) Price controls and the behavior of auction markets : an experimental examination. Am Econ Rev 71:448–459

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaghargh MJP, Mashhadi HR (2020) Structural and behavioural evaluation of renewable energy power plants’ impacts on transmission network congestion using an analytical approach. IET Renew Power Gener 14:1164–1173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang MX, Yang DX, Chen ZY, Nie PY (2016) Market power in auction and efficiency in emission permits allocation. J Environ Manage 183:576–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin M, Granda-marulanda NA, Down I (2014) The impact of carbon policies on supply chain design and logistics of a major retailer. J Clean Prod 85:453–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang DJ, Kim BH, Hur D (2007) Supplier bidding strategy based on non-cooperative game theory concepts in single auction power pools. Electr Power Syst Res 77:630–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khezr P, MacKenzie IA (2018) Consignment auctions. J Environ Econ Manage 87:42–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klemperer P (2002) What really matters in auction design. J Econ Perspect 16:169–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klingenfeld D (2007) The exercise of market power in carbon markets – possibilities and limits for regulation. Washington DC

  • Li H, Zhao Y, Wang S, Lin J, Cao Y, Shi Q, Liu Y, Xiao Y, Li J (2019) Scenario analysis of ETS revenue allocation mechanism of China: based on a dynamic CGE model. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:27971–27986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li W, Zhang YW, Lu C (2018) The impact on electric power industry under the implementation of national carbon trading market in China: A dynamic CGE analysis. J Clean Prod 200:511–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Z, Yan J, Shi Y, Zhu K, Pu G (2012) Multi-agent based experimental analysis on bidding mechanism in electricity auction markets. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 43:696–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Z, Zhang X, Lieu J (2010) Design of the incentive mechanism in electricity auction market based on the signaling game theory. Energy 35:1813–1819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandell S (2005) The choice of multiple or single auctions in emissions trading. Clim Policy 5:97–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maskin E, Riley J (2000) Asymmetric Auctions. Rev Econ Stud 67:413–438

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumoto K (2008) Evaluation of an artificial market approach for GHG emissions trading analysis. Simul Model Pract Theory 16:1312–1322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthäus, D., 2020. Designing effective auctions for renewable energy support. Energy Policy 142.

  • Mohammed F, Selim SZ, Hassan A, Syed MN (2017) Multi-period planning of closed-loop supply chain with carbon policies under uncertainty. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 51:146–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moradinasab N, Amin-Naseri MR, Jafari Behbahani T, Jafarzadeh H (2018) Competition and cooperation between supply chains in multi-objective petroleum green supply chain: A game theoretic approach. J Clean Prod 170:818–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Na, L., Ji-xin, H., Ning, H., Kal-ping, G., 2010. Emission permits trade of carbon based on the game theory of double auction. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 6.

  • Nanduri, V., Otieno, W., 2011. Assessing the impact of different auction-based CO2 allowance allocation mechanisms, in: IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting. pp. 1–7.

  • Olivares M, Weintraub GY, Epstein R, Yung D (2012) Combinatorial auctions for procurement: An empirical study of the chilean school meals auction. Manage Sci 58:1458–1461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palak G, Ekşioǧlu SD, Geunes J (2014) Analyzing the impacts of carbon regulatory mechanisms on supplier and mode selection decisions: An application to a biofuel supply chain. Int J Prod Econ 154:198–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PoursalimiJaghargh MJ, Mashhadi HR (2021) An analytical approach to estimate structural and behavioral impact of renewable energy power plants on LMP. Renew Energy 163:1012–1022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahimiyan M, Mashhadi HR (2010) An adaptive Q-Learning algorithm developed foragent-based computational modeling of electricity market. IEEE Trans. Syst Man Cybern Part C Appl Rev 40:547–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahimiyan M, RajabiMashhadi H (2008) Supplier’s optimal bidding strategy in electricity pay-as-bid auction: Comparison of the Q-learning and a model-based approach. Electr Power Syst Res 78:165–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rassenti SJ, Smith VL, Wilson BJ (2003) Discriminatory Price Auctions in Electricity Markets: Low Volatility at the Expense of High Price Levels. J Regul Econ 23:109–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezaee A, Dehghanian F, Fahimnia B, Beamon B (2017) Green supply chain network design with stochastic demand and carbon price. Ann Oper Res 250:463–485

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sabzevar N, Enns ST, Bergerson J, Kettunen J (2017) Modeling competitive firms’ performance under price-sensitive demand and cap-and-trade emissions constraints. Int J Prod Econ 184:193–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadr SM, RajabiMashhadi H, Hajiabadi ME (2016) Evaluation of Price-Sensitive Loads ’ Impacts on LMP and Market Power using LMP Decomposition. Iran J Electr Electron Eng 12:154–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwalbe U (2008) Tacit Collusion in Repeated Auctions. J Institutional Theor Econ JITE 164:189–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shinano, Y., Fujie, T., 2007. ParaLEX: A parallel extension for the CPLEX mixed integer optimizer, in: In European Parallel Virtual Machine/Message Passing Interface Users’ Group Meeting. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg., pp. 97–106.

  • Smith, vernon L., Williams, A.W., (2008) Effect of nonbinding price controls in double auction trading. Handb Exp Econ Results 1:46–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sturm B (2008) Market power in emissions trading markets ruled by a Multiple Unit Double Auction: Further experimental evidence. Environ Resour Econ 40:467–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugiyarto, W., 2020. An analysis of the performance of the Indonesian treasuries market. Queensland University of Technology.

  • Sumithra Sofia D, Shirly Edward A (2020) Auction based game theory in cognitive radio networks for dynamic spectrum allocation. Comput Electr Eng 86:106734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talman D, Yang Z (2008) A dynamic auction for differentiated items under price rigidities. Econ Lett 99:278–281

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Tang L, Wu J, Yu L, Bao Q (2017) Carbon allowance auction design of China’s emissions trading scheme: A multi-agent-based approach. Energy Policy 102:30–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesauro G, Kephart JO (2002) Pricing in agent economies using multi-agent Q-learning. Auton Agent Multi Agent Syst 5:289–304

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Tesfatsion L (2002) Agent-based computational economics: growing economies from the bottom up. Artif Life 8:55–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vossler CA, Mount TD, Thomas RJ, Zimmerman RD (2009) An experimental investigation of soft price caps in uniform price auction markets for wholesale electricity. J Regul Econ 36:44–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, C.J.C.H., 1989. Learning from delayed rewards.

  • Wilensky, U., Rand, W., 2015. An introduction to agent-based modeling: modeling natural, social, and engineered complex systems with NetLogo. Mit Press.

  • Wu R, Dai H, Geng Y, Xie Y, Masui T, Tian X (2016) Achieving China’s INDC through carbon cap-and-trade: Insights from Shanghai. Appl Energy 184:1114–1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiong, G., Hashiyama, T., Okuma, S., 2002. An electricity supplier bidding strategy through Q-Learning, in: IEEE Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting. IEEE, pp. 1516–1521.

  • Xiong, G., Okuma, S., Fujita, H., 2004. Multi-agent based experiments on uniform price and pay-as-bid electricity auction markets, in: 2004 IEEE International Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation, Restructuring and Power Technologies. Proceedings. IEEE, pp. 72–76.

  • Xu J, Chen Y, Bai Q (2016) A two-echelon sustainable supply chain coordination under cap-and-trade regulation. J Clean Prod 135:42–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu J, Qi Q, Bai Q (2018) Coordinating a dual-channel supply chain with price discount contracts under carbon emission capacity regulation. Appl Math Model 56:449–468

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Xu X, He P, Xu H, Zhang Q (2017) Supply chain coordination with green technology under cap-and-trade regulation. Int J Prod Econ 183:433–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu S, min, Fan, Y., Zhu, L., Eichhammer, W., (2020) Modeling the emission trading scheme from an agent-based perspective: System dynamics emerging from firms’ coordination among abatement options. Eur J Oper Res 286:1113–1128

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zakaria, R., Dib, M., Moalic, L., Caminada, A., 2015. Car relocation for carsharing service: Comparison of CPLEX and greedy search, in: In 2014 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Vehicles and Transportation Systems (CIVTS). IEE, pp. 51–58.

  • Zakeri A, Dehghanian F, Fahimnia B, Sarkis J (2015) Carbon pricing versus emissions trading: A supply chain planning perspective. Int J Prod Econ 164:197–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang B, Xu L (2013) Multi-item production planning with carbon cap and trade mechanism. Int J Prod Econ 144:118–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farzad Dehghanian.

Additional information

Communicated by Hector Cancela.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendices

1.1 Appendix A

The following indices are applied for each supply chain’s mathematical modeling:

Supply chain index

\(s=\{\mathrm{1,2},\dots ,S\}\)

Product index

\(i=\{\mathrm{1,2},\dots ,I\}\)

Machine index

\(j=\{\mathrm{1,2},\dots ,J\}\)

Manufacturing center index

\(m=\{\mathrm{1,2},\dots ,M\}\)

Warehouse index

\(w=\{\mathrm{1,2},\dots ,W\}\)

Customer zone index

\(c=\{\mathrm{1,2},\dots ,C\}\)

Transportation mode index

\(v=\{\mathrm{1,2},\dots ,V\}\)

Period index

\(t=\{\mathrm{1,2},\dots ,T\}\)

The input parameters include the followings:

\({de}_{sict}\)

Forecasted demand for product \(i\) in customer zone \(c\) in period \(t\) in supply chain \(s\)

\({Fc}_{sm}\)

Fixed costs for manufacturing center \(m\) to operate in each period in supply chain \(s\)

\({{Fc}^{^{\prime}}}_{sw}\)

Fixed costs for warehouse \(w\) to operate in each period in supply chain \(s\)

\({Uc}_{sim}\)

Unit holding cost per period for product \(i\) in manufacturing center \(m\) in supply chain \(s\)

\({{Uc}^{^{\prime}}}_{siw}\)

Unit holding cost per period for product \(i\) in warehouse \(w\) in supply chain \(s\)

\({Hc}_{sm}\)

Holding capacity in manufacturing center \(m\) in each period in supply chain \(s\)

\({{Hc}^{^{\prime}}}_{sw}\)

Holding capacity in warehouse \(w\) in each period in supply chain \(s\)

\({Vo}_{i}\)

The volume of product \(i\)

\({P}_{sij}\)

Processing time (hours) to produce a unit of product \(i\) on machine \(j\) in supply chain \(s\)

\({L}_{sij}\)

Labor/hour cost to produce a unit of product \(i\) on machine \(j\) in supply chain \(s\)

\(C{m}_{si}\)

Cost of raw material for producing a unit of product \(i\) in supply chain \(s\)

\({Oc}_{sim}\)

Variable overhead cost for producing a unit of product \(i\) in manufacturing center \(m\) in supply chain \(s\)

\({Cp}_{sjm}\)

Capacity hours for the production in manufacturing center \(m\) on machine \(j\) in each period in supply chain \(s\)

\({Cr}_{sim}\)

Capacity units of raw material supply for product \(i\) in manufacturing center \(m\) in each period in supply chain \(s\)

\({tc}_{simwv}\)

Unit transportation cost of product \(i\) from manufacturing center \(m\) to warehouse \(w\) through mode \(v\) in supply chain \(s\)

\({{tc}^{^{\prime}}}_{siwcv}\)

Unit transportation cost of product \(i\) from warehouse \(w\) to customer zone \(c\) through mode \(v\) in supply chain \(s\)

\({{t}_{1}}_{\begin{array}{c}max\\ smwv\end{array}}\)

Maximum transportation capacity from manufacturing center \(m\) to warehouse \(w\) through mode \(v\) in each period in supply chain \(s\)

\({{t}_{2}}_{\begin{array}{c}max\\ swcv\end{array}}\)

Maximum transportation capacity from warehouse \(w\) to customer zone \(c\) through mode \(v\) in each period in supply chain \(s\)

\({I}_{{1}_{sim}}\)

Inventory level of product \(i\) in manufacturing center \(m\) at the start of the planning horizon

\({{I}^{^{\prime}}}_{{1}_{sim}}\)

Inventory level of product \(i\) in manufacturing center \(m\) at the end of the planning horizon

\({I}_{{2}_{siw}}\)

Inventory level of product \(i\) in warehouse \(w\) at the start of the planning horizon

\({{I}^{^{\prime}}}_{{2}_{siw}}\)

Inventory level of product \(i\) in warehouse \(w\) at the end of the planning horizon

\({ep}_{sij}\)

Estimated carbon emissions to produce a unit of product \(i\) on machine \(j\) in any period per unit time in supply chain \(s\)

\({et}_{simwv}\)

Estimated carbon emissions for the shipment a unit of product \(i\) from manufacturing center \(m\) to warehouse \(w\) through mode \(v\) in supply chain \(s\)

\({{et}^{^{\prime}}}_{siwcv}\)

Estimated carbon emissions for the shipment a unit of product \(i\) from warehouse \(w\) to customer zone \(c\) through mode \(v\) in supply chain \(s\)

\({eh}_{sim}\)

Estimated carbon emissions for holding a unit of product \(i\) in manufacturing center \(m\) in each period in supply chain \(s\)

\({{eh}^{^{\prime}}}_{siw}\)

Estimated carbon emissions for holding a unit of product \(i\) in warehouse \(w\) in each period in supply chain \(s\)

\(G\)

A large number

The decision variables include the followings:

\({Qp}_{sijmt}\)

Quantity of product \(i\) produced in manufacturing center \(m\) on machine \(j\) at period \(t\) in supply chain \(s\)

\({X}_{simwvt}\)

Quantity of product \(i\) shipped from manufacturing center \(m\) to warehouse \(w\) through mode \(v\) at period \(t\) in supply chain \(s\)

\({{X}^{^{\prime}}}_{siwcvt}\)

Quantity of product \(i\) shipped from warehouse \(w\) to customer zone \(c\) through mode \(v\) at period \(t\) in supply chain \(s\)

\({Y}_{simt}\)

Inventory amount of product \(i\) in manufacturing center \(m\) at the end of period \(t\) in the supply chain \(s\)

\({{Y}^{^{\prime}}}_{siwt}\)

Inventory amount of product \(i\) in warehouse \(w\) at the end of period \(t\) in the supply chain \(s\)

\({F}_{smt}=\left\{\begin{array}{c}1,\\ 0,\end{array}\right.\)

If the manufacturing center \(m\) operates in period \(t\) in the supply chain \(s\)

Otherwise

\({{F}^{^{\prime}}}_{swt}=\left\{\begin{array}{c}1,\\ 0,\end{array}\right.\)

If warehouse \(w\) operates in period \(t\) in the supply chain \(s\)

Otherwise

\(Cost\_{EC}_{s}\)

Total costs of supply chain \(s\) in the cap-and-trade system

\({EC}_{s}\)

Total carbon emission produced in supply chain \(s\)

\({Cap}_{s}\)

Carbon allocated to supply chain \(s\) in the auction

\(TEP\)

Total carbon emission produced in all supply chains

\(\psi \)

Carbon trading price

According to these parameters and variables, each supply chain's objective function is formulated using mixed-integer linear programming based on a given carbon trading price. Each supply chain aims to minimize its objective function (Eq. 13). It includes fixed costs for operating and opening manufacturing centers, and warehouses, production cost, inventory holding costs in manufacturing centers and warehouses, transportation costs for the shipment of products from manufacturing centers to warehouses and warehouses to customer zones, and the revenue (cost) of selling (buying) carbon allowances, respectively:

$$Cost\_{EC}_{s}=Min \sum_{m}\sum_{t}{Fc}_{sm}{F}_{smt}+\sum_{w}\sum_{t}{{Fc}^{^{\prime}}}_{sw}{{F}^{^{\prime}}}_{swt} + \sum_{i}\sum_{j}\sum_{m}\sum_{t}{Qp}_{sijmt}({P}_{sij}{L}_{sij}+{Cm}_{si}+{Oc}_{sim})+\sum_{i}\sum_{m}\sum_{t}{Uc}_{sim}{Y}_{simt}+ \sum_{i}\sum_{w}\sum_{t}{{Uc}^{^{\prime}}}_{siw}{{Y}^{^{\prime}}}_{siwt}+\sum_{i}\sum_{m}\sum_{w}\sum_{v}\sum_{t}{tc}_{simwv}{X}_{simwvt}+ \sum_{i}\sum_{w}\sum_{c}\sum_{v}\sum_{t}{{tc}^{^{\prime}}}_{siwcv}{{X}^{^{\prime}}}_{siwcvt}+\psi ({EC}_{s}-{Cap}_{s})$$
(13)

The carbon emission generated by each supply chain \(s\) is calculated according to Eq. (14). It includes carbon emissions generated in manufacturing centers, shipment of products from manufacturing centers to warehouses and warehouses to customer zones, and inventory holding in manufacturing centers and warehouses.

$$ EC_{s} = \mathop \sum \limits_{i} \mathop \sum \limits_{j} \mathop \sum \limits_{m} \mathop \sum \limits_{t} P_{sij} ep_{sij} Qp_{sijmt} + \mathop \sum \limits_{i} \mathop \sum \limits_{m} \mathop \sum \limits_{w} \mathop \sum \limits_{v} \mathop \sum \limits_{t} et_{simwvt} X_{simwvt} + \mathop \sum \limits_{i} \mathop \sum \limits_{w} \mathop \sum \limits_{c} \mathop \sum \limits_{v} \mathop \sum \limits_{t} et^{^{\prime}}_{siwcvt} X^{\prime}_{siwcvt} + \mathop \sum \limits_{i} \mathop \sum \limits_{m} \mathop \sum \limits_{t} eh_{sim} Y_{simt} + \mathop \sum \limits_{i} \mathop \sum \limits_{w} \mathop \sum \limits_{t} eh^{^{\prime}}_{siw} Y^{\prime}_{siwt} $$
(14)

The objective function in Eq. (13) is subject to the following constraints:

Limitation on raw material supply:

$$ \mathop \sum \limits_{j} Qp_{sijmt} \le Cr_{sim}\quad \forall s,i,m,t $$
(15)

Restriction on the total available working hours for each machine:

$$ \mathop \sum \limits_{i} Qp_{sijmt} P_{sij} \le Cp_{sjm}\quad \forall s,j,m,t $$
(16)

Storage capacity restriction in manufacturing centers and warehouses:

$$ \mathop \sum \limits_{i} Vo_{i} Y_{simt} \le Hc_{sm}\quad \forall s,m,t{ } $$
(17)
$$ \mathop \sum \limits_{i} Vo_{i} Y^{\prime}_{siwt} \le Hc^{^{\prime}}_{sw}\quad \forall s,w,t $$
(18)

Limitations on transportation capacity for shipment of products from the manufacturing centers to the warehouses and the warehouses to the customer zones:

$$ \mathop \sum \limits_{i} (Vo_{i} X_{simwvt} ) \le t_{1}{{\begin{array}{*{20}c} {max} \\ {smwv} \\ \end{array} }}\quad \forall s,m,w,v,t $$
(19)
$$ \mathop \sum \limits_{i} (Vo_{i} X^{\prime}_{siwcvt} ) \le t_{2} {{\begin{array}{*{20}c} {max} \\ {swcv} \\ \end{array} }}\quad \forall s,w,c,v,t $$
(20)

The inventory balance in manufacturing centers, warehouses, and customer zones:

$$ Y_{simt} - Y_{{sim\left( {t - 1} \right)}} = \mathop \sum \limits_{j} Qp_{sijmt} - \mathop \sum \limits_{w} \mathop \sum \limits_{v} X_{simwvt} \quad \forall s,i,m,t $$
(21)
$$ Y^{\prime}_{siwt} - Y^{\prime}_{{siw\left( {t - 1} \right)}} = \mathop \sum \limits_{m} \mathop \sum \limits_{v} X_{simwvt} - \mathop \sum \limits_{c} \mathop \sum \limits_{v} X^{\prime}_{siwcvt}\quad \forall s,i,w,t $$
(22)
$$ \mathop \sum \limits_{j} \mathop \sum \limits_{m} \mathop \sum \limits_{t} Qp_{sijmt} = \mathop \sum \limits_{c} \mathop \sum \limits_{t} de_{sict} + \mathop \sum \limits_{m} I^{\prime}_{{1_{sim} }} - \mathop \sum \limits_{m} I_{{1_{sim} }} + \mathop \sum \limits_{w} I^{\prime}_{{2_{siw} }} - \mathop \sum \limits_{w} I_{{2_{siw} }}\quad \forall i,s $$
(23)

Restriction on satisfying demand:

$$ \mathop \sum \limits_{w} \mathop \sum \limits_{v} X^{\prime}_{siwcvt} = de_{sict}\quad \forall s,i,c,t $$
(24)

Inventory levels at the start and end of the planning horizon in manufacturing centers and warehouses:

$$ Y_{sim0} = I_{{1_{sim} }} \& Y_{simT} = I^{\prime}_{{1_{sim} }}\quad \forall s,i,m $$
(25)
$$ Y^{\prime}_{siw0} = I_{{2_{siw} }} \& Y_{siwT} = I^{\prime}_{{2_{siw} }}\quad \forall s,i,w $$
(26)

Limitation on decision variables:

$$ 0 \le Qp_{sijmt} \le G F_{smt}\quad \forall s,i,m,t $$
(27)
$$ 0 \le X_{simwvt} \le G F_{smt} \& 0 \le X_{simwvt} \le GF^{\prime}_{swt}\quad \forall s,i,m,w,v,t $$
(28)
$$ 0 \le X^{\prime}_{siwcvt} \le GF^{\prime}_{swt}\quad \forall s,i,w,c,v,t $$
(29)
$$ 0 \le Y_{simt}\quad \forall s,i,m,t $$
(30)
$$ 0 \le Y^{\prime}_{siwt} \quad \forall s,i,w,t $$
(31)

Appendix B

The centers of each supply chain are dispersed randomly in a square area with a size of \(10\times 10\) units of distance. Euclidean distance is considered between the two centers. The distance between manufacturing center \(m\) and warehouse \(w\) and between warehouse \(w\) and customer zone \(c\) are represented by \({dis}_{mw}\) and \({dis}_{wc}\), respectively. These distances are used for the following parameters that their values are dependent on distance. They are calculated according to the following formulas (the brackets indicate the generation of a random number from a uniform distribution in the interval):

$${tc}_{simwv}={Vo}_{i}[\mathrm{2,4}]*{dis}_{mw}*{ts}_{v}$$
(32)
$${{tc}^{^{\prime}}}_{siwcv}={Vo}_{i}[\mathrm{2,4}]*{dis}_{wc}*{ts}_{v}$$
(33)
$${et}_{simwv}={Vo}_{i}[\mathrm{2,4}]*{dis}_{mw}*{cts}_{v}$$
(34)
$${{et}^{^{\prime}}}_{siwcv}={Vo}_{i}[\mathrm{2,4}]*{dis}_{wc}*{cts}_{v}$$
(35)

The parameters \({ts}_{v}\) and \({cts}_{v}\) indicate the cost and carbon emissions for shipping a unit of product in a distance unit through mode \(v\), respectively. These two parameters are generated according to Table 10:

Table 10 Specifications of transportation mode-dependent parameters

The inventory level for all products at the start and the end of the planning horizon in the manufacturing centers and warehouses are zero. The parameters regarding the manufacturing machine are calculated based on Table 11. The others are generated according to the details given in Table 12.

Table 11 Specifications of the machine-dependent parameters
Table 12 Specifications of the generated examples

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Esmaeili Avval, A., Dehghanian, F. & Pirayesh, M. Auction design for the allocation of carbon emission allowances to supply chains via multi-agent-based model and Q-learning. Comp. Appl. Math. 41, 170 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-022-01868-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-022-01868-5

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Navigation