When the battery on a cell phone falters or when the screen is shattered, some people see it as a signal: Time to get a new phone.

If a consumer wants, they should be able to get it repaired. And as long as it’s simple, they should be able to do it themselves.

Good for consumer budgets. Good for the environment.

It’s the argument of “right to repair” advocates and the heart of the reason for Senate Bill 1596 in the Oregon Legislature. The bill has Democratic and Republican support. State Rep. Emerson Levy, D-Bend, is one of the bill’s sponsors.

The best way to do a right to repair law would be a uniform federal law. Each of the 50 states should not have different standards for businesses to allow their products to be repaired. But Congress has not acted. It may or may not. Consumers shouldn’t be forced to wait.

More than 30 states have some form of right to repair laws. California recently passed one and that formed the basis for the Oregon legislation.

The Oregon bill basically: “requires a person that makes electronic items for consumers to give on fair terms to people who look at, maintain or repair the items what they need to do effective maintenance or make effective repairs. Fair terms means, in part, giving independent people what they need on the same terms as people the maker authorizes to make repairs. Lets the state fine people who violate the Act.”

The issue in the bill that has raised many questions is what is called “parts pairing.” Parts pairing is something Apple does to require that certain parts can only be ordered by consumers or repair shops from Apple. It can make repairs more expensive. Apple says that is necessary for the integrity and security of the product.

Apple did back the California right to repair law, which did not include a prohibition on parts pairing. Brian Naumann, vice president of service and operations management at Apple, said in October Apple intends to honor California’s law across the United States.

The Oregon bill, at least as introduced, did not allow parts pairing in certain instances. We’d take the Oregon bill over California’s.