A group of electric utilities, including some of the nation’s largest producers of both energy and greenhouse gases, told lawmakers Tuesday that they want to work with them on crafting a major global warming bill.

The offers — made by both electricity giants and small rural cooperatives — came a week after chief executive officers of major U.S. automakers also told Congress that they want to cooperate on drafting a global warming bill.

All these gestures come as part of a sea change in industry: Many corporations say they now view climate change legislation as inevitable and have moved from resisting carbon emissions regulations to trying to get in on the ground floor of writing them.

Electric utility CEOs told the House Energy Air Quality subcommittee that they want most to have a say in any measures involving burning coal, a fuel that lies at the crossroads of the debates over energy security and global warming.

The United States has been called the “Saudi Arabia of coal,” and increased use of coal offers the promise of reduced dependence on imported oil — but also raises the prospect of increased emissions of greenhouse gases. Currently, about half the nation’s electricity is generated from coal, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Utilities asked for legislation that would postpone putting a mandate or tax on carbon emissions until the development of technology to store carbon gas underground, and for increased funding and incentives to develop that technology.

“If this technology and the timeline you set out for us don’t align, then we will accomplish nothing but a nice political soundbyte,” said Michael G. Morris, president and CEO of American Electric Power, who called his utility “the largest burner of coal in the western hemisphere.”

He said his company does support the eventual adoption of an economy-wide cap-and-trade greenhouse gas reduction program. But Morris and the other CEOs said taxing coal’s carbon emissions before there is any widespread technology to cut or sequester the gases would have too great an impact on the economy.

David L. Sokol, chairman of the MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company, told lawmakers, “It’s going to cost a lot to lower carbon emissions, and that cost will fall squarely on the shoulders of utility customers. Funding research and development of the [carbon storage] technology is absolutely essential. The market can’t deal with a cap and trade until the technology is there.”

Jeffrey E. Sterba, CEO of the PNM Resources utility, estimated that $500 million a year for 10 years in government funds would be needed to develop and commercialize the carbon capture technology.

The CEOs also asked to delay new emissions standards if other greenhouse gas-emitting nations such as China and India do not enact similar controls.

They are likely to get what much of what they want, at least from House legislation. The House Air Quality panel, which is writing the climate change bill, is chaired by Democrat Rick Boucher, who hails from coal-rich southwest Virginia and is keen to support his home district’s industry.

“We would certainly preserve your ability to continue to use coal and would have to include working with developing nations,” Boucher told the utility heads.

“We need to not limit coal-powered utilities’ ability to use coal. For that to happen, we need carbon capture technology to be available,” Boucher said.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher James R. Katzer told the Senate Commerce Committee on Tuesday that, with intense research, carbon capture technology could be safely employed commercially in about a decade.