ComEd 2006 Annual Report Download - page 346

*6 The BSC Expense vs. Budget goal is comprised of the BSC Operating Expense vs. Budget goal and Finance Group
Operating Expense vs. Budget goal. Both goals are expressed as a percent of budget and the threshold for a 50% payout,
was 105%; the target, for a 100% payout, was 100%; distinguished, for a 200% payout, was 97%.
*7 The ComEd Financial Measures are comprised of ComEd Total Cost (operating and maintenance expense and capital) and
ComEd Net Income. For the ComEd Total Cost goal (as a % of budget), the threshold for a 50% payout, was 103%; the target, for
a 100% payout, was 100%; distinguished, for a 200% payout, was 98%. For the ComEd Net Income goal, the threshold (in $
millions), for a 50% payout, was $465; the target, for a 100% payout, was $536; distinguished, for a 200% payout, was $590.
Annual incentive payments were also based on customer satisfaction as measured by
performance on the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Proxy objective, and individual
performance.
The ACSI Proxy captures the overall opinions from customers in all segments—residential, large
commercial and industrial and small commercial and industrial. If the ACSI Proxy fell below the 3rd
Quartile of peer group utilities, AIP awards would have been reduced by 2.5%. If the ACSI Proxy rose
from the 3rd Quartile to the 2nd Quartile, the AIP Awards would have been increased by 5%. An
independent research firm tabulates the ACSI Proxy score after asking customers to rate their utility
using three survey measures: How satisfied customers are with the company overall; the extent to
which the company falls short or exceeds customers’ expectations; and how close the company is to
their ideal energy utility company.
For the evaluation period of Q1 2006 through Q3 2006, the company achieved a score of 70.7,
which was in the 2nd quartile. As a result of meeting the 2006 customer satisfaction objective of the
Annual Incentive Program (AIP), all annual incentive payments were increased by 5%.
Mr. Rowe’s 2006 Annual Incentive. Taking into account the performance review discussed above,
the compensation committee and the corporate governance committee recommended, and the
independent directors of the Exelon board approved, an award of $1,851,800 for Mr. Rowe, which is
129.5% of his target annual incentive opportunity and in addition the effect of an individual
performance multiplier (IPM) of 110%. The individual performance multiplier is used at the discretion of
the compensation committee to adjust awards from minus 50% to plus 10% subject to the maximum
200% of target opportunity and the amount available to fund his award under the incentive pool.
Other Named Executive Officers’ 2006 Annual Incentives. The compensation committee
recommended and the board of directors approved the following awards for the other NEOs:
Exelon, Generation and PECO
Name
% of Target Opportunity
(Pre IPM) IPM Award
Skolds ............................................. 129.5% 100% $616,744
Young ............................................. 129.5% 100% 498,575
Mehrberg ........................................... 129.5% 100% 507,640
Clark .............................................. 114.2% 100% 326,584
McLean ............................................ 143.5% 100% 383,145
Crane .............................................. 143.5% 110% 483,021
O’Brien ............................................ 86.6% 110% 228,654
Hilzinger ........................................... 137.7% 105% 227,757
341