In Figure , we use the South Side Landfill (1002683) as an example to illustrate the effect of the GHGRP requirement change on self-reported rates. Several studies estimated and reported total emissions from this landfill using a variety of platforms and methods . Three of the studies reported estimates for this landfill prior to the change in reporting requirements; Figure shows general agreement between these TD estimates and the GHGRP selfreported rate using the FOD method. The most recent TD estimate of emissions from this landfill was reported in , along with a GHGRP self-reported rate based on the CEA method that is 3 times lower than the FOD estimate from a decade prior. note that their TD estimate for the South Side Landfill is much larger than the other studies possibly due to the construction of a new gas capture facility in 2019 that raised emissions temporarily. Nonetheless, a > 1000 kg CH4/h decrease in the GHGRP self-reported rate for this landfill over the last decade is inconsistent with the evolution of an active landfill's emissions profile as the volume of accepted waste increases. FOD models have known issues such as using a generalized soil oxidation coefficient across the landfill surface and failing to account for the effects of climate and weather on oxidation rates ); however, our example demonstrates a case where FOD models may perform well in accurately estimating total landfill CH4 emissions relative to TD measurements and the CEA method. Recent analysis of emissions data for Sampson County and Charlotte Motor Speedway in corroborates this, as TD estimates aligned with GHGRP self-reported rates based on the FOD method for these landfills. This may not be the case for every landfill -the FOD method may underestimate total emissions, or TD methods may overestimate emissions (e.g., .