Click HERE if you’re unable to view the gallery on your mobile device.

PARADISE — On Nov. 8, two hours before the deadly Camp Fire erupted, a weather station at Jarbo Gap recorded sustained winds of 32 mph blowing through the valleys east of Paradise, with gusts of up to 52 mph. A Red Flag Warning was in effect, humidity had dipped to 22 percent, and the rural communities hadn’t seen significant rain since April.

Nearly all of PG&E’s fire danger thresholds had been met — such as wind speeds and the fire-alert declaration — to warrant a preemptive shut down of power for the second time in the utility’s history. But, despite 48 hours of warnings to residents in Butte and eight other counties that power could be interrupted Thursday morning, PG&E decided to keep the electricity flowing.

The decision has led critics to ask why and state regulators to investigate whether PG&E acted appropriately.

“We don’t discuss details of ongoing investigations, but our investigations include assessment of operator decisions, such as (whether) to proactively shut-off power,” said Terrie Prosper, spokeswoman for the California Public Utilities Commission.

In a tweet at 3:14 p.m. Nov. 8, almost nine hours after the Camp Fire roared to life, PG&E announced it would not conduct a Public Safety Power Shutoff anywhere “as weather conditions did not warrant this safety measure.”

PG&E has determined that it will not proceed with plans today for a Public Safety Power Shutoff in portions of 8 Northern CA counties, as weather conditions did not warrant this safety measure. We want to thank our customers for their understanding. https://t.co/DqYJz1iWve pic.twitter.com/fIjiExGmFP — PG&E (@PGE4Me) November 8, 2018

PG&E spokeswoman Mayra Tostado further clarified the company’s decision this week. She said the Camp Fire did not start in an area where they had alerted customers of a possible interruption in power last week. The utility, at the time, said the possible shut down would impact about 26,500 customers in portions of Butte County, including the cities and towns of Berry Creek, Chico, Forest Ranch, Magalia, Oroville and Paradise. Cal Fire pinpointed the fire’s origin near Poe Dam, just north of the tiny resort town of Pulga. It also is investigating whether a second fire was subsequently ignited near Concow.

“The forecasted conditions didn’t meet the criteria to initiate a Public Safety Power Shutoff in those areas,” Tostado said. “It is used under specific extreme weather conditions to further reduce the risk of wildfires and is not deployed as a response to an active fire.”

The day after the Camp Fire started, PG&E reported to state regulators that a transmission line malfunctioned near the origin of the fire. The blaze quickly turned Paradise and other nearby towns to ash and killed scores of people, making it the deadliest and most destructive fire in California history. No official cause has been determined, but Cal Fire has said it is investigating electrical infrastructure.

Since last year’s deadly North Bay fires, PG&E has beefed up its weather tracking capabilities and set up protocols to conduct Public Safety Power Shutoffs in the event of extreme fire weather danger, similar to what Southern California utilities have done for years.

The company did shut off power for the first time in its history last month, ahead of forecasted heavy winds and dry conditions. PG&E received blowback from customers complaining about spoiled food, shutdowns in areas with milder weather and other inconveniences. However, in a required de-energization report sent to the California Public Utilities Commission to justify the service interruption, PG&E explained that before restoring power to its lines, it found significant wind-related damage to infrastructure, any one of which could have sparked a fire had the power been on.

The utility was poised to take action again. On Tuesday, Nov. 6, with a forecast of high winds and low humidity expected two days later, PG&E alerted the public that, as a precautionary measure, power might be interrupted in certain Northern California counties, including Butte County.

Over the next 48 hours, the utility tweeted out 17 different warnings of an impending Nov. 8 morning shut-off. It even tweeted out a warning at 7:56 a.m. Thursday, more than an hour after the Camp Fire was reported, that the power interruption was still an option, before calling it off at 3 p.m. that afternoon, hours after the Camp Fire swept through Paradise.

PG&E calls the shutdowns a “last resort,” and its policy says no single factor drives the decision-making process. But many of the company’s criteria appear to have been met by Thursday morning. Those criteria include a Red Flag Warning declaration, humidity levels “generally 20 percent and below,” sustained winds of more than 25 mph with gusts above 45 mph, and extremely dry conditions.

Roy Montgomery, a wildland fire consultant in Oregon, said PG&E’s standards seem sound, but he stressed wind speeds are most important.

“High wind speeds need to carry the heaviest weight since overhead power lines are vulnerable to the influence of extreme winds,” he said. “Shutting down the power grid is a complex issue.”

At 5 a.m. Nov. 8, about 90 minutes before the fire, sustained winds had reached 30 mph, according to the Jarbo Gap weather station, with gusts reaching 51 mph. The humidity was 23 percent, which would drop to as low as 11 percent in the coming hours.

The soil and vegetation were incredibly dry as well with essentially no rainfall since April.

The first firefighters at the scene reported that 30 mph winds were fanning flames underneath high-tension wires across the Feather River from Poe Dam.

Thomas Scott, who has written about fire management in California’s wildland urban interface and works with the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, wonders if the decision to keep power on may have had to do with the complaints the utility received after its October shutdown.

“Any rationale they had for keeping the lines hot has tragically backfired for everyone involved,” he said. “Can’t understand what they were contemplating; perhaps they maintained power until the last possible moment because that action breeds unhappy customers and dangerous situations if power is turned off.”

The idea of proactively terminating electrical power for safety reasons is new for PG&E. Just days after last year’s North Bay fires, the utility responded to state investigators about why it resists the emergency measure, unlike its counterparts to the south.

Among other things, PG&E cited impacts from widespread outages to public safety and first responders, communications systems, hospitals, street lights and signals and building lights and elevators. The utility also explained that the issue would impact almost its entire service territory, as 44 of its 49 counties had portions of land classified as extreme fire danger.

But PG&E reversed course this summer. In July, the CPUC passed a resolution supporting the use of power shutdowns to mitigate wildfire risks. It also set up a structure for proper notification, reporting requirements and other steps to keep people safe, such as reaching out to medically fragile individuals who might be impacted by no electricity.

PG&E launched the new program for the first time on Oct. 13, as its forecasters saw a dangerous incoming weather system. The following day, it cut power to about 60,000 customers in seven counties. Butte County originally had been on the list, but PG&E dropped it in the final hours “due to conditions observed in real-time in areas near those lines,” the utility said at the time.

Despite the inconvenience, the October shutdown may have saved lives and property. During inspections before restoring power, the utility found extensive wind-related damage to its equipment, primarily from falling trees and branches. It also found trees and branches lying across conductors, which could have easily ignited if the power had been active.

Paradise Mayor Jody Jones said she received the warning notices from PG&E last week and sensed frustration in her community of the potential inconvenience.

“I saw quite a few people on social media with negative comments about it, but what do you expect?” she said. “You can hold them liable for the fires, but they can’t do anything about it?”