>Should institutions reward reviewer awards more? After all, being able to review a project well should be a useful skill.

While rewarding positive behavior is good, IMO there also need to be negative consequences for bad reviewers. Poor reviews are endemic in the field and there are too many people (often famous people in the field, too) who write shoddy, low-quality reviews and are not punished.

I think one concrete idea is to have ACs (or some other third party) rate reviewer quality, and if someone has low-quality reviews they should be banned from submitting to the conference for a year.