Talk about a good example of how math and "statistics" can lead to wrong conclusions.

This would be like looking at a cross country bike ride of 3000 miles where the highest elevation was 6500' and saying the average grade was so minimal I would not need much gearing. Can't we just take the OP at his word and help him figure out how to make his new commute a fun challenge rather than a grueling trial every day. My reason for asking about elevation gain was simply to figure out what kind of climbing the commute involved- short steep climbs? One long climb? A bunch of "rollers"? IMO, this helps in knowing what kind of gearing, bike choice, tire sizes and riding style would best help the rider.

One other strategy is a training strategy. Often commuting cyclists use their commutes and transportation needs as the sole means by which they achieve fitness and that can be effective. But when you get a sudden change in your commute, like the OP, sometimes it's worth it to devote some time to some training rides. Taking a day and finding the toughest, steepest, longest climb you can and doing a series of hill repeats until you can't do one more and then giving yourself a couple of days for recovery and then going back to your commute may make those hills feel like nothing in no time. (Repeat as necessary)