In this paper, the uniform price and discriminative price methods are compared in the carbon auction market using multi-agent Q-learning. The government and different firms are considered as agents. The government as auctioneer allocates initial permits in the carbon auction market, and the firms as bidders compete with each other to obtain a larger share of the auction. The carbon trading market, penalty, reserve price, and bidding volume limitation are considered. The simulation analysis demonstrates that bidders have different behavior in two pricing methods under different amounts of carbon permits. In the uniform price, the value of bidding volume, firms’ profit, and the trading volume for low permits and the value of the government revenue, clearing price, the trading price, and auction efficiency for high permits are greater than ones in the discriminative price method. Bidding prices have a higher dispersion in the uniform price than the discriminative price method for different amounts of carbon permits.
Keywords: Multi-agent-based model, carbon auction market, uniform price auction, discriminative price auction, carbon trading market, Q-learning
@article{RO_2021__55_3_1767_0,
author = {Esmaeili Avval, Akram and Dehghanian, Farzad and Pirayesh, Mohammadali},
title = {The comparison of pricing methods in the carbon auction market \protect\emph{via} multi-agent $Q$-learning},
journal = {RAIRO. Operations Research},
pages = {1767--1785},
year = {2021},
publisher = {EDP-Sciences},
volume = {55},
number = {3},
doi = {10.1051/ro/2021065},
mrnumber = {4276348},
zbl = {1468.91056},
language = {en},
url = {https://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1051/ro/2021065/}
}
TY - JOUR AU - Esmaeili Avval, Akram AU - Dehghanian, Farzad AU - Pirayesh, Mohammadali TI - The comparison of pricing methods in the carbon auction market via multi-agent $Q$-learning JO - RAIRO. Operations Research PY - 2021 SP - 1767 EP - 1785 VL - 55 IS - 3 PB - EDP-Sciences UR - https://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1051/ro/2021065/ DO - 10.1051/ro/2021065 LA - en ID - RO_2021__55_3_1767_0 ER -
%0 Journal Article %A Esmaeili Avval, Akram %A Dehghanian, Farzad %A Pirayesh, Mohammadali %T The comparison of pricing methods in the carbon auction market via multi-agent $Q$-learning %J RAIRO. Operations Research %D 2021 %P 1767-1785 %V 55 %N 3 %I EDP-Sciences %U https://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1051/ro/2021065/ %R 10.1051/ro/2021065 %G en %F RO_2021__55_3_1767_0
Esmaeili Avval, Akram; Dehghanian, Farzad; Pirayesh, Mohammadali. The comparison of pricing methods in the carbon auction market via multi-agent $Q$-learning. RAIRO. Operations Research, Tome 55 (2021) no. 3, pp. 1767-1785. doi: 10.1051/ro/2021065
[1] , and , Electricity market pricing: uniform pricing vs. pay-as-bid pricing. Electricity Markets (2020) 19–35. | DOI
[2] , , , and , Demand reduction and inefficiency in multi-unit auctions. Rev. Econ. Stud. 81 (2014) 1366–1400. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[3] and , , English, Dutch, …. French, and Internet. J. Financ. Intermed. 11 (2002) 9–36. | DOI
[4] and , On the design of optimal grandfathering schemes for emission allowances. Eur. Econ. Rev. 49 (2005) 2041–2055. | DOI
[5] , Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99 (2002) 7280–7287. | DOI
[6] , , and , Optimal production and carbon emission reduction level under cap-and-trade and low carbon subsidy policies. J. Clean. Prod. 167 (2017) 505–513. | DOI
[7] , and , The cost-effectiveness of conservation auctions in the presence of asset specificity: an agent-based model. Land Use Policy 102 (2021) 104907. | DOI
[8] , , and , Can carbon cap and trade mechanism be beneficial for remanufacturing? Int. J. Prod. Econ. 203 (2018) 311–321. | DOI
[9] , , Auctioning in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. ko-Institut & University of Cambridge (2007).
[10] , Grandfathering, auctioning and carbon leakage: assessing the inconsistencies of the new ETS Directive. Energy Policy 38 (2010) 2420–2430. | DOI
[11] and , Auction design for the allocation of carbon emission allowances: Uniform or discriminatory price? Int. J. Energy Environ. 1 (2010) 533–546.
[12] and , Experimental comparison of impact of auction format on carbon allowance market. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (2012) 4148–4156. | DOI
[13] and , Tradable carbon permits auctions: How and why to auction not grandfather. Energy Policy 30 (2002) 333–345. | DOI
[14] , Carbon auctions, energy markets & market power: an experimental analysis. Energy Econ. 44 (2014) 468–482. | DOI
[15] , and , Low-carbon production with low-carbon premium in cap-and-trade regulation. J. Clean. Prod. 134 (2016) 652–662. | DOI
[16] and , Discriminatory Versus Uniform Auction: Evidence From JGB Market. Available SSRN (2020).
[17] and , Multiagent reinforcement learning theoretical frame work and an algorithm. ICML 98 (1998) 242–250.
[18] and , Nash -learning for general-sum stochastic games. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 4 (2004) 1039–1069. | MR | Zbl
[19] , , and , Market power in auction and efficiency in emission permits allocation. J. Environ. Manage. 183 (2016) 576–584. | DOI
[20] , Designing effective auctions for renewable energy support. Energy Policy 142 (2020) 11462. | DOI
[21] , , and , Modeling the emission trading scheme from an agent-based perspective: system dynamics emerging from firms’ coordination among abatement options. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 286 (2020) 1113–1128. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[22] and , An analytical approach to estimate structural and behavioral impact of renewable energy power plants on LMP. Renew. Energy 163 (2021) 1012–1022. | DOI
[23] and , Supplier’s optimal bidding strategy in electricity pay-as-bid auction: comparison of the -learning and a model-based approach. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 78 (2008) 165–175. | DOI
[24] and , An adaptive -Learning algorithm developed for agent-based computational modeling of electricity market. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C Appl. Rev. 40 (2010) 547–556. | DOI
[25] , and , Evaluation of price-sensitive loads’ impacts on LMP and market power using LMP decomposition. Iran. J. Electr. Electron. Eng. 12 (2016) 154–167.
[26] and , On multiagent -learning in a semi-competitive domain. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1995) 191–205.
[27] , An Analysis of the Performance of the Indonesian Treasuries Market. Queensland University of Technology (2020).
[28] , , and , Carbon allowance auction design of China’s emissions trading scheme: a multi-agent-based approach. Energy Policy 102 (2017) 30–40. | DOI
[29] and , Pricing in agent economies using multi-agent Q-learning. Auton. Agent. Multi. Agent. Syst. 5 (2002) 289–304. | DOI
[30] and , Auctioning divisible goods. Econ. Theory 19 (2002) 673–705. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[31] and , An Introduction to Agent-Based Modeling: Modeling Natural, Social, and Engineered Complex Systems with NetLogo. Mit Press (2015).
[32] , and , An electricity supplier bidding strategy through Q-Learning. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Summer Meeting 3 (2002) 1516–1521. | DOI
[33] , and , 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 (2004) 72–76. | DOI
Cité par Sources :
