The electricity grid in the Netherlands is highly congested and poses a significant challenge due to increasing demand and the transition to sustainable energy sources, which overwhelms the existing infrastructure. To address this issue, Distribution System Operators (DSOs) like Alliander are tasked with managing waiting lists for power connections and transport capacity requests. The traditional First-Come-First-Serve (FCFS) principle unintentionally delays transport requests that can be argued are more important to society. This motivated the policymakers to propose a prioritization framework based on societal importance. This framework prioritizes clients in categories such as congestion softeners, safety, basic needs, and sustainability, aiming to benefit society as a whole. However, the introduction of this framework raises several implications, particularly concerning distributive justice. To systematically identify and deliberate these implications, a Design Science Research methodology was used. This methodology involved a comprehensive literature review across various research areas including Energy Justice, Waiting List Management, and Distributive Justice. Subsequently, a qualitative and quantitative analysis was conducted to understand the impacts on waiting times for both priority and non-priority clients. Stakeholder opinions were analyzed across different industries, revealing concerns and suggestions regarding the social prioritization framework. The quantitative analysis estimated the real impact on waiting lists, considering technical constraints and proposing distributive justice metrics such as time equity disparity and change in the estimated time-to-solution ratio. The analysis of real waiting lists demonstrated mixed outcomes, with priority clients experiencing decreases in waiting times while non-priority clients faced delays. Some non-priority clients were needlessly delayed. Distributive justice metrics highlighted disproportionate burdens on non-priority clients. Moreover, the framework's impacts extended beyond delays to financial, and psychological effects. Recommendations for future research include incorporating historical data, obtaining more client information, improving stakeholder feedback loops, and further analyzing other aspects of Energy Justice. Additionally, connecting quantitative implications to societal values could enhance understanding of the framework's benefits to society. Overall, this research provides valuable insights into the implications of implementing a social prioritization framework for electricity grid waiting lists, highlighting the importance of considering distributive justice and societal impacts in policy development and decision-making processes.