Hi, Mr. Happy!
I believe ego is just a Freudian psychological category of Being. My understanding -- and I could be wrong about this --- is that ego is one of your modes of being.
Under the classic Freudian set up, I believe, there was the Id, your mode of being that simply wants what it wants, it is sheer WANT; the superego is you in your "ethical" or "moral" one (provided life circumstances has given you one, perhaps) -- it is the voice of NO that you have accumulated over your life experience under the supervision of adult authority figures; those two forms, I think, are your moderators; and the ego, I believe, is your experiential life self, you in action in the world, that is modified by the other two phases.
If you think about it, the connection between ego and emotons might be tricky. If you are angry, where does that come from? Could it come from the thwarted Id that does not get what it want? Or does it come from the superego, your ethical or moral self that judges right from wrong -- by the way 'right' and 'wrong' is not going to be the same for everybody.
Or, I suppose the anger could come from the ego, you-in-action-in-the-world might feel wronged (cut off by another driver on the highway or something). This anger would not come from the Id, which is a kind of primordial force of WANTING within us, according to the way I understand the classic Freudian set up.
The anger would not come from the superego, you probably can't process being cut off on the highway (as quickly as these things happen) in some ethical or moral way.
I guess my answer to your question, then, is that it depends on how you understand the ego. Second, if we use the classic Freudian set up, it depends on what the nature of the emotion is -- depending on the situation triggering the emotion, I suppose we might file it under 'ego,' 'superego,' or 'Id.'